March 2020 CO2 Levels at Mauna Loa Show No Obvious Effect from Global Economic Downturn

From Dr. Roy Spencer’s Blog

April 7th, 2020 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

The COVID-19 disease spread is causing a worldwide shutdown in economic activity as business close, airlines cancel flights, and people shelter in their homes. For example, there was a 28% decline in global commercial air traffic in March 2020 compared to March of last year.

Last month I described a simple method for removing the large seasonal cycle from the Mauna Loa CO2 data, and well as the average effects from El Nino and La Nina (the removal is noisy and imperfect), in an effort to capture the underlying trend in CO2 and so provide a baseline to compare future months’ measurements too.

What we are looking for is any evidence of a decline in the atmospheric CO2 content that would be strong enough to attribute to the economic downturn. As can be seen, the latest CO2 data show a slight downturn, but it’s not yet out of the ordinary compare to previous month-to-month downturns.

MLO-CO2-data-through-March-2020

I personally doubt we will see a clear COVID-19 effect in the CO2 data in the coming months, but I would be glad to be proved wrong. As I mentioned last month, those who view the economic downturn as an opportunity to reduce atmospheric CO2 would have to wait many years — even decades — before we would see the impact of a large economic downturn on global temperatures, which would occur at great cost to humanity, especially the poor.

268 thoughts on “March 2020 CO2 Levels at Mauna Loa Show No Obvious Effect from Global Economic Downturn

  1. Next on WUWT, lede writer shows no obvious effect of ten ton weight falling on head .

    Read the graph, for X!#% sake!

    • I didn’t look at your calculation after you mentioned Weins displacement. Weins displacement refers to blackbodies ie solids and liquids (non-gray bodies, but doesn’t matter). Gases don’t have blackbody radiation they emit and absorb in lines and don’t emit a continuous spectrum. Further analysis is therefore suspect unless you can explain why you used Wein at all. I’m not trying to discourage you.

      • To give you a background as to how I arrived at an analysis of the spectrum of CO2, just click on my name to read my comprehensive report on the matter.

      • CO2 levels are higher than the benchmark period leading up to Trumps shutdown on March15. Thus we can be confident that higher CO2 is leading to the reduction in new COVID across Europe.

        Monckton has established this methodology in several recent posts here on WUWT.

          • That sounds like an ad homonym attack to me. The resort of those who do not have a valid argument.

          • Richard. I suggest you look up what ‘ad hominem’ means .
            If you read Greg’s comment again you will notice that he was making a joke about higher CO2 levels reducing Covid in Europe.
            I wasn’t insulting Greg at all.

      • Henry,

        It looks like you get .0768 EV per molecule from the energy of about a photon in the center of the planets radiated spectrum (about 10u). You seem to be considering the effect of only 1 photon per second per molecule over 60 years.

        Regarding Alex’s comment about BB radiation, yes, atmospheric gases don’t ordinarily radiate as a BB, but water does, including oceans and clouds, so while atmospheric gases don’t emit BB radiation, clouds do and clouds cover 2/3 of the planet. Note that at high densities and pressures, (i.e. approaching a liquid or solid state) collisional broadening morphs line spectra into a Planck spectrum.

        Understanding emitting bodies, most importantly gray body emitters, is absolutely crucial for understanding the macroscopic behavior of the planet’s energy balance. Th SB Law and COE are all you need to quantify the climate sensitivity which is the derivative of the SB Law using an emissivity established by the ratio of planet missions to surface emissions (about 0.62).

        The sensitivity is then 100% deterministic as 1/(4eoT^3) which for T = 288K, e =0.62 and o=5.67E-8 becomes 0.3 C per W/m^2 or about 1.62 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 of forcing which is less than the IPCC’s lower bound of 0.4C per W/m^2 and far less than their upper limit of 1.2C per W/m^2. At the current CO2 concentration and a baseline at the end of the LIA, this results in about 0.75 W/m^2 for all CO2 emitted since the end of the LIA which coincidentally occurred just before the start of the Industrial Revolution (or was it the warming climate that resulted in the IR?).

        • CO2isnotevil
          Thx.
          What you are saying, is that the way from the top down is not exactly the same as from bottom to the top?
          From a general point of view,
          I could argue that if 34K warming is caused by the presence of the 0.8% GH gasses in the atmosphere (the rest, 99.2 is transmitting all radiation through)
          -if I believed that-….
          then

          34/80 =0.426 K / per 0.01 %
          = 0.426 x 0.08/0.17 =0.3K (see my Excel file)

          Would you say that is correct?

          • What I’m saying is that you’re only counting 1 photon per CO2 molecule per second. The flux in and out of each molecule is many times more than 1 photon per second. While the rate of spontaneous emissions are low, the probability that an energized CO2 molecule will emit a photon upon absorbing another is close to 100%. Similarly, collisions often have enough energy to perturb the electron cloud of an energized CO2 molecule and cause it to emit a photon returning it to the ground state.

            The 34K of warming is more than 1/2 from clouds and the rest from GHG’s, including water vapor. GHG’s between the surface and clouds are largely irrelevant to surface warming, as there’s a high probability that the cloud would be absorbing those surface emissions anyway and returning half to the surface, just as a GHG would do.

            Furthermore, the 34K of warming can’t be separated from the 16K or so of cooling caused by the reflection by surface ice and clouds. Without water and weather, the Earth’s albedo would be closer to 0.1 and not the 0.3 as it is now. Note that the largest component of the GHG effect is water vapor while water is also responsible for reflection, absorption and emission by clouds. From a macroscopic perspective, water, weather, clouds, ice and GHG’s combined increase the surface temperature by only about 18K.

          • CO2
            Thx. That would reduce that value of 0.3 to less than half….
            Do you understand why I had a look at the spectrum of CO2? Click on my name to read my report that led me to see what the net effect is of one molecule.

          • Henry,

            The effect of one molecule starting from the ground state is to

            1) within microseconds, a photon at an appropriate energy will pass close enough to the GHG molecule to be captured and energize the molecule.
            2) once energized, within microseconds another photon will be captured significantly increasing the probability of spontaneous emissions
            3) either the molecule will spontaneously emit a photon after absorbing enough other photons, or a collision will perturb the molecule enough to cause to to emit a photon and transition to a lower energy state.

            You still haven’t acknowledged the mistake in your earlier analysis. If you want to convert the effect per GHG molecule from Joules to Watt-seconds, you need to multiply the energy per transaction times the number of transactions per second per molecule. You’re multiplying it by 1 transaction per second per molecule which is why you get such a low value.

            On a related topic, the idea of ‘thermalization’ is based on net energy coming or going into rotational states and then subject to sharing by collisions. This works both ways, where vibrational state energy is either given up or taken from a rotational state upon either a collision induced or spontaneous emission, so there’s no NET transfer of vibrational energy to rotational energy, thus no NET thermalization. The relatively symmetric fine structure in the absorption spectra on either side of primary lines is clear evidence of this transfer happening in both directions.

            The bottom line is that GHG molecules act as a transmission line specific to absorption band photons traveling between the surface and space where the transmission line has an impedance mismatch causing about half the energy entering it from the surface to be ‘reflected’ back to the surface.

          • CO2

            Thanks for your comments.
            My thinking was always that the way for a photon from the bottom to the top is the same as from the top to the bottom. If we know the ratio’s of the warming and cooling effects, as determined by me from the absorption spectra, I was hoping for a simple comparison to determine the effect of 0.01% CO2 in W/m2 rather than relying on the ‘historical’ measurements concerning this.

            I understand your argument, but if you could somehow help me on the way doing it correctly using my Excel file with the NIST data?

            I should perhaps also mention that NIST ends at 2.6 um, whereas if you look in:
            http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/library/turnbull06a.pdf

            fig 6 (bottom) there also seem to be absorption peaks from 1.4 to 2.5 um…
            Apart from that there also seem to be small absorption lines in the UV which is how we identify and measure the concentration of CO2 on other planets.

            That means the net warming effect could indeed be lower than 0.07 eV.

            My understanding of the physics [from what I am seeing happening, especially from the Turnbull report] is that in the areas where there is absorption the photons cannot get ‘through’ the molecule. As you said, once filled – which is probably a microsecond after the light falls on the molecule – the photons have to go back; If we assume the molecule is like a sphere, I would say 62.5% in the direction of the source and 37.5% scattered in any other direction. Very much the same way as when you put your bright lights on in misty conditions.

          • Henry,

            The way I’d do it is using MODTRAN or its equivalent. An accurate analysis is too complicated for a spreadsheet.

            What I’ve found is that when CO2 is doubled from pre-industrial concentrations, the incremental surface emissions absorbed by CO2 increases by about 4 W/m^2. Numerically, this is consistent with the IPCC’s claimed forcing of 3.7 W/m^2 from doubling CO2, except that only half of the incremental absorption is returned to the surface to offset additional emissions, while they IPCC assumes that many times more than the incremental absorption will ultimately offset increased surface emissions. It could also be that the IPCC fails to account for surface emissions clouds would absorb anyway despite increased CO2 concentrations, but it doesn’t seem like there’s a good source describing the methodology used to arrive at the equivalent forcing from doubling CO2.

            Next, they implicitly multiply 3.7 W/m^2 of equivalent forcing by a closed loop power gain of 4.4 to arrive at the 16.3 W/m^2 increase in the surface emissions corresponding to the nominal 3C increase claimed to arise from doubling CO2. They obfuscate what they are doing by multiplying 3.7 W/m^2 of forcing times the equivalent 0.8C per W/m^2. They hide the absurdity of a power gain of 4.4 by expressing the output as a change in temperature. The logic is that 0.8C per W/m^2 seems plausible, while 4.4 W/m^2 of surface emissions per W/m^2 will raise too many questions, even though both are equivalent representations of the same amount of change, moreover; the later relationship is already linear and incorrectly assuming that approximate linearity around the mean is sufficient to apply feedback analysis is not required. Another reason this is so absurd is that all W/m^2 must affect the surface similarly and if each of the 240 W/m^2 arriving from the Sun contributed 4.4 W/m^2 to the surface emissions, the surface temperature required to emit that much power would be close to the boiling point of water.

            The alarmists will cite non linearity and feedback is how the next W/m^2 can be so much more powerful than the average. Of course, the only reason it seems non linear to the alarmists is because they falsely linearized the relationship between W/m^2 and degrees and besides, the feedback analysis the alarmist rely on to massively amplify the forcing doesn’t actually apply.

          • 0.03 deg F/yr NC dT for the last 150 yrs, dT

            11,500,000,000,000,000,000 lbs atm
            8.28E+16 btu gained per year
            1314000 hrs = 150 yrs
            63013698630 btu/hr atm gain
            18274 MW
            18273972603 W
            5.101E+14 m^2, surface area of planet earth
            3.58243E-05 W/m^2
            number even smaller than Pool’s?

    • Looks reasonable.

      You can also look at it this way: one CO2 molecule needs to share that absorbed energy with 2500 other molecules, which will be an immeasurable impact.

    • Eyeballing the graph it appears there was a similar decline at about the same time last year. Spring has sprung in the northern hemisphere and it’s amazing how quickly the forests green up as their flowers and leaves pop out. Just the pollen out put itself must be a sizable carbon sink yet small compared to the new burst of leaf and wood growth.

      • meiggs,

        The asymmetry between hemispheres is why we see the signature of the N hemisphere seasons in the global response. That there is a seasonal response is clear from the seasonal sawtooth signature in the CO2 record. What many don’t recognize is that this same response is seen in the ice cores, where during ice ages, less of the planet is supporting biomass and lower CO2 concentrations will result (or are required). This can also account for the multi-century lag between temperature and CO2 concentrations since it takes centuries for forests to die off (or start up) relative to slowly varying conditions plus it takes time for CO2 to accumulate in order to support a larger biomass.

        Biomass will never completely adapted to increasingly favorable conditions, plus as conditions improve, more CO2 is required to fully take advantage of the better conditions thus conditions can get worse for a while before the biomass is in exact equilibrium with the conditions after which it starts to follow the now deteriorating conditions, delayed by a few centuries. The reverse happens as conditions get worse. This is the nature of a time constant.

    • Henry Pool – April 8, 2020 at 10:47 pm

      I would very much appreciate any comment.

      Any comment, ….. huh? ……. Better here that at the bottom.

      Quoted excerpts by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.

      The COVID-19 disease spread is causing a worldwide shutdown in economic activity as business close, airlines cancel flights, and people shelter in their homes.

      Absolutely correct statement, …… with the results of the above “shutdown” being responsible for a horrendous decrease in anthropogenic emissions of CO2.

      In other words, if the aforesaid “shutdown” has resulted in an estimated 80% decrease in human activities, ….. then one must assume that there is also an 80% decrease in anthropogenic emissions of CO2.

      What we are looking for is any evidence of a decline in the atmospheric CO2 content that would be strong enough to attribute to the economic downturn.

      Well now, the appropriate place to look for the above noted “evidence” is in the Mauna Loa Observatory CO2 Record which should reflect the aforesaid estimated 80% decrease in anthropogenic emissions of CO2.

      So, given the fact that said “shutdown” has occurred during the Northern Hemisphere’s fall/winter (Oct-March) there should be a noticeable “decrease” in the wintertime increase in atmospheric CO2. A decrease that is equivalent to that which occurs as the result of a strong La Niña or large volcanic eruption.

      I personally doubt we will see a clear COVID-19 effect in the CO2 data in the coming months, but I would be glad to be proved wrong.

      Now just why would you be glad to be proved wrong, …… when you have already testified that you believe “anthropogenic CO2 emissions” are partly responsible for CO2 causing near-surface air temperature increases ……. as well as Anthropogenic Global Warming Climate Change?

      A clear COVID-19 effect would cause a noticeable decrease in atmospheric CO2 ppm, which, according to your belief, would cause a decrease in globally average near-surface air temperatures, therefore confirming your belief.

    • “This multiplied by 0.0768 gives us 0.08448 x 10^39 eV. Converted to Joules, this is 0.01352 x 10^20. This is the same as 1.352 x 10^18 Watt.seconds.”

      Say what? You want to try and explain your math here, including where all the magic numbers came from?

      The CO2 “Greenhouse effect”, if you buy into that hypothesis, is based on the absorption of certain wavelengths of light, and then the scattering of the re-emitted light. It increases the amount of time that energy is within a specific layer (so kind of like a heat battery). Actually most of the increase in heat is due to the estimated amount of additional water vapor that is in the air due to the slight warming of CO2 itself (positive feedback).

      The Greenhouse Effect is not at all how an actual greenhouse works, but then climate activists like making up and/or using non-meaningful names and labels to make everything sound more scientific. Even if we accept it as an actual process whereby the near surface heats, it is completely overwhelmed by convection which the climate activists try to ignore. More surface heat, more convection, more rainfall, more cooling. Earth’s temperature control mechanisms are really quite amazing.

      • Robert of Texas – April 9, 2020 at 12:40 pm

        Actually most of the increase in heat is due to the estimated amount of additional water vapor that is in the air due to the slight warming of CO2 itself (positive feedback).

        There ya go, Robert, …… I fixed that for you.

        Remove the H2O vapor from the near-surface air, such as is common in desert locales, and things cool down lickety-split as the Sun starts setting, …. even though desert locales have the same atmospheric CO2 ppm as the rest of earth’s surface.

    • Henry — I don’t see any obvious errors. But I think you might need to consider a broader picture. A few simple gases have no internal electric dipole at the molecular level. Theoretically, they can’t absorb or radiate electromagnetic radiation in the infrared. And that actually seems to be mostly true in practice as well as theory. As it happens, the Earth’s atmosphere is composed almost entirely of such gases — Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon. Their IR radiative activity is said to be detectable, but VERY low.

      But the non-radiative gases do have mass. The molecules can move about and exchange energy via collisions — which are very frequent at least in denser the lower levels. So the atmosphere can be heated by conduction and warmed or cooled air can rise or fall (Convection). But radiation if it has any affect at all, has to be mediated by collisions of non-radiative air molecules with things that can absorb and emit radiation — the ground, water (including clouds), particulates (including ice) , and radiative gases — water vapor, CO2, etc. Thus, radiative gases would seem to have importance out of all proportion to their relative paucity in the atmosphere.

      I don’t think any of that is a mystery to atmospheric scientists. But modeling it isn’t all that easy.

      Where I have questions and you might as well, is with CO2. I think (maybe I’m wrong) that the strong lines in the CO2 IR spectrum come from activation of vibrational and rotational modes in the CO2 molecule. But from what I read, these are first excited states — one step above the ground state. And one apparently one has to consider (yechhh) quantum mechanics which severely constrains how much energy can be transferred to/from that transition by interaction with photons.

      At this point, I’m not sure that energy gained and lost by CO2 by IR radiation can be effectively transferred to/from other gas molecules by collisions. If it can’t (at Earth atmosphere temperatures and pressures), then the energy is real enough, but it presumably represents latent heat (doesn’t show up on thermometers) rather than sensible heat.

      If you choose to look into this, you’ll want to check out the “principle of equipartition”. The issue would presumably be how many “degrees of freedom” does atmospheric CO2 actually have in practice? If the answer is 3, then CO2 is probably a very minor bit player in the atmosphere. If it is 5 or 7, CO2 will possibly be an important agent in transferring atmospheric energy via radiation.

      Or I could by very, very confused. It’s not like I am, or have ever been, much good at physics.

      • DonK

        Indeed, as far as I understand it, the atmosphere only contains about 0.8% GH gasses which includes clouds – I would think. The other 99.2% lets all types of radiation through, even the back-radiation of GH gases.
        CO2 has absorption in the 15um region causing back radiation to earth. That is the warming effect. As I discovered (read my recent answer to CO2is not Evil)

        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/08/march-2020-co2-levels-at-mauna-loa-show-no-obvious-effect-from-global-economic-downturn/#comment-2961167

        there also cooling effects as CO2 also has absorption in the sun’s spectrum, namely from 1.4 to 5 um.
        Study the Turnbull report and you will figure out the physics.

        • Henry

          I think you missed my point. That’s OK, I didn’t explain it all that well. The issue isn’t the 15um, 4.3um, 2.8um CO2 absorbtion/emission peaks backradiating to Earth. Pretty much everyone agrees that happens although they don’t necessarily agree on the details and exact numbers.

          What I’m concerned about is whether at Earth atmosphere temperatures and pressures, there can be significant energy interchange between CO2 molecules and molecules of the non-radiative gases. i.e. can a collision between a CO2 molecule and, for example, a Nitrogen molecule cause the CO2 molecule to enter an excited state from which it can subsequently fire off a photon and return to its initial state. And vice versa. Can a CO2 molecule absorb a photon, enter an excited state, then transfer the energy to a Nitrogen molecule during a collision?

          If CO2 can effectively act as an intermediary to allow normally non-radiative gases to alter their temperature via absorption and emission of radiation by CO2, CO2 is going to have much more affect on atmospheric temperatures than if it can’t.

          I’m reasonably sure that at very cold temperatures, there is no meaningful interaction between kinetic energy and radiation for any gas. And I’m equally sure that at high temperatures they can and do interact. But I have no idea what the breakover points are for CO2. Here’s a link that discusses some aspects of the situation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specific_heat_capacity#Polyatomic_gases

        • DonK

          I am afraid, like most people, you donot realize exactly what the warming effect is of a GHG….and how it works. Nothing to do with ‘thermalization’. That is the usual ‘education’ coming from Phil. & a few others.
          I would advise you to ignore it. There is not much ‘thermalization’ because except for the 0.8% GHG’s, the gases in the atmosphere cannot absorb any re-radiation or back radiation from the GHG’s.
          I try GHG 101, again…as I realize that the people that I encounter on most scientific blogs don’t understand the chemistry principle of extinction / absorption and subsequent re-radiation. In my opinion, very few people do understand it because if they did they would have raised the alarm bells ringing long time ago. But they all got stuck at Tyndall and Svante Arrhenius. …
          They know that CO2 (carbon dioxide) “absorbs” in the 14-15 um region. Most people think that what it means is that the molecules absorbs photons here which then subsequently get transferred as heat to neighbouring molecules. Then it absorbs again, and so on, and so on…and all the absorbed light is continuously transferred to heat…
          Although this may happen up to a certain saturation point as soon as the light or radiation hits on the gas, that is in fact not what is causing the heat entrapment.
          The best way to experience re-radiation is to stand in a moist dark forest just before dawn on a cloudless night. Note that water vapour also absorbs in the visible region of the spectrum. So as the first light of sun hits on the water vapour around you can see the light coming from every direction. Left, right, bottom up, top down. You can see this for yourself until of course the sun’s light becomes too bright in the darkness for you to observe the re-radiated light from the water vapour.
          A second way to experience how re-radiation works is to measure the humidity in the air and the temperature on a certain exposed plate, again on a cloudless day, at a certain time of day for a certain amount of time. Note that as the humidity goes up, and all else is being kept equal, the temperature effected by the sun on the plate is lower. This is because, like carbon dioxide, water vapour has absorption in the infra red part of the spectrum. Remember that sometimes you will grab for your sunglasses even when there are no clouds and the sun is shining in your back? That is when the RH is still high…..and the re-radiated light of the water vapor still irritates your eyes.
          We can conclude from these simple experiments that what happens is this: in the wavelengths areas where absorption takes place, the molecule starts acting like a little mirror, the strength of which depends on the amount of absorption taking place inside the molecule. Assuming the molecule is like a perfect sphere, 62,5% of a certain amount of light (radiation) is send back in the direction where it came from. This is the warming or cooling effect of a gas hit by radiation. It is like when you put your bright lights on in very misty conditions. The light goes back in the direction where it came from, mostly. ca. 37.5% is scattered in all directions.
          Unfortunately, in their time, Tyndall and Arrhenius could not see the whole picture of the spectrum of a gas which is why they got stuck on seeing only the warming properties of a gas.
          If people would understand this principle, they would not singularly identify green house gases (GHG’s) by pointing at the areas in the 5-20 um region (where earth emits pre-dominantly) but they would also look in the area 0-5 um (where the sun emits pre-dominantly) for possible cooling effects.

          In all of this we are still looking at pure gases. The discussion on clouds and the deflection of incoming radiation by clouds is still a completely different subject.
          So what everyone should be doing is looking at the whole spectrum of the gas molecule 0-20 um. Unless you come to me with a balance sheet of how much cooling and how much warming is caused by a gas, we don’t actually know whether a substance is a GHG or an anti GHG or even neutral.
          Hence, the investigation I did, as shown in the very first comment on this thread.

          Seeing that CO2 also causes cooling by taking part in the life cycle (plants and trees need warmth and CO2 to grow), and because there is clear evidence that there has been an increase in greenery on earth in the past 4 decades, I think the total net effect of more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere could even be zero or close to zero. But unless we cone up with a test method and measurements, we will never know for sure.
          Note that in one of my earlier comments, I referred to the Turnbull report. You should try and understand how and what they measured as that will give you the clues you need.
          They measured the re-radiation from CO2 as it bounced back to earth from the moon. So the direction was sun-earth-moon -earth. Follow the green line in fig. 6, bottom. Note that it already starts at 1.2 um, then one peak at 1.4 um, then various peaks at 1.6 um and 3 big peaks at 2 um. It all comes back in fig. 6 top.
          This paper here shows that there is absorption of CO2 at between 0.21 and 0.19 um (close to 202 nm):
          http://www.nat.vu.nl/en/sec/atom/Publications/pdf/DUV-CO2.pdf

          There are other papers that I can look for again that will show that there are also absorptions of CO2 at between 0.18 and 0.135 um and between 0.125 and 0.12 um.
          We already know from the normal IR spectra that CO2 has big absorption between 4 and 5 um.

          So, to sum it up, we know that CO2 has absorption in the 14-15 um range causing some warming (by re-radiating earthshine) but as shown and proved above it also has a number of absorptions in the 0-5 um range causing cooling (by re-radiating sunshine). This cooling happens at all levels where the sunshine hits on the carbon dioxide same as the earthshine. The way from the bottom to the top is the same as from top to the bottom. So, my question is: how much cooling and how much warming is caused by the CO2? How was the experiment done to determine this and where are the test results? (I am afraid that simple heat retention testing might not work here, we have to use real sunshine and real earthshine to determine the effect in W/m2 per 0.01%.

          I have started the process, as indicated in the very first comment on this thread. If CO2isnotEvil or somebody could help me in getting that photon flux right? That would be great!

          • Top Fig 6 black data line goes below the zero datum between ~ 1.9 to 2.1 um, Bottom Fig 6 green CO2 line exhibits dips in “relative reflectance (?)” but does not go negative. Are the Fig 6 vertical scales for both top and bottom “relative reflectance?” What is negative reflectance and why does it not occur bottom Fig 6?

            (Great stuff btw, been meaning to dig into this myself after seeing Jim Steele’s (Fig 44) plot of temperatures over the S pole not being affected by rising CO2 in the atm.)

          • Meiggs
            I am still busy trying to calculate what the effect is of 0.01 percent more CO2 in the atmosphere.
            I am sure Phil. can give you the correct answer.
            From unscientific observations.

          • Henry Pool April 11, 2020 at 4:37 am
            We can conclude from these simple experiments that what happens is this: in the wavelengths areas where absorption takes place, the molecule starts acting like a little mirror, the strength of which depends on the amount of absorption taking place inside the molecule. Assuming the molecule is like a perfect sphere, 62,5% of a certain amount of light (radiation) is send back in the direction where it came from. This is the warming or cooling effect of a gas hit by radiation. It is like when you put your bright lights on in very misty conditions. The light goes back in the direction where it came from, mostly. ca. 37.5% is scattered in all directions.

            This is not what happens at all, the molecule does not act as a ‘little mirror’. It certainly does not behave like an elastic scatterer (water droplets in a fog).
            The CO2 molecule absorbs a photon of the energy needed to excite a vibration of the bonds of the molecule, specifically the bending mode. Some time after this event the molecule will lose the excess energy, either by radiating it away (not necessarily at the identical wavelength) or by collision with surrounding molecules (higher pressure favors the latter).

          • Phil.
            I was waiting for you to trash me, again. If you know and measured all those so called rotations and vibrations, why don’t you calculate for me how much the effect is in W/m2 and degrees K of 0.01 percent CO2? Show me your calculations. I want to laugh.

          • Henry Pool April 11, 2020 at 10:30 pm
            Phil.
            I was waiting for you to trash me, again. If you know and measured all those so called rotations and vibrations, why don’t you calculate for me how much the effect is in W/m2 and degrees K of 0.01 percent CO2?

            I did not ‘trash’ you, I just pointed out once again that you have a flawed understanding of the interaction of IR light with gas molecules. Your explanation refers to elastic scattering and proposes something akin to the Mie scattering of light by small particles (water drops) comparable with the incident wavelength. For a gas molecule which is much smaller than the wavelength Rayleigh scattering is the appropriate elastic scattering mechanism which yields backscatter/forward scatter ~1. However for incident IR of the appropriate wavelength it is inelastic scatter which occurs and the photon is absorbed and its energy excites the appropriate ro-vibrational mode.
            I didn’t say anything about your calculations, if I were to make such a calculation I’d use something like Modtran.

          • “That gives me a final result of 7 x 10^- 7 W/m2

            As you can see: Added to the normal continuous output of earth of ca. 232 W/m2, it compares almost to nothing……….”

            Henry, I applaud your efforts. There is often more than one path to understanding even complex matters. The devil then becomes the details. My estimate is two orders of magnitude larger than yours. However, both round to zero when compared to the output of earth.

            +0.03 deg F/yr NC dT for the last 150 yrs

            11,500,000,000,000,000,000 lbs atm
            8.28E+16 btu gained per year
            1314000 hrs = 150 yrs
            63013698630 btu/hr atm gain
            18274 MW
            18273972603 W
            5.101E+14 m^2, surface area of planet earth
            3.58243E-05 W/m^2

          • Meiggs

            I like your calculation! But is flawed of course. It assumes all warming was due to the CO2?
            It is a good indicator, though, to see if we are getting in the right direction.
            Myself, I don’t believe we should even look at the warming of the atmosphere. There is no mass… The mass is in the oceans. And there is thermalisation, as well, as water absorbs in the IR and in the visible, and especially in the UV. It is the variation in incoming UV that largely determines warming or cooling of earth. It is the oceans that warm the atmosphere. So what happens when you look at SST?

          • Henry, everything I do is flawed, I’m human. But I assume my line of reason is reasonably correct while it is entirely possible that the math or the inputs or both are flawed. Nevertheless, I assume nothing about CO2 concentration in the atm. Here is my line of thought from the little I know about thermodynamics:

            1) My interpretation of NOAA data for Asheville, NC leads me to believe that temperature there has been trending upward for the past 150 years at the modest rate of 0.03F/yr. Fact or fiction I do not know.

            2) The atm is all I have historic temperature data for. Though I agree atm mass is slight compared to the ocean as one that plays with compressible fluids the atm is still a force to be reckoned with. I used the mass of the atm from a random internet source. Fact or fiction I do not know.

            3) I understand your point that the proportion of energy absorbed by subcritical water easily exceeds that absorbed by supercritical fluids in this system. We happen to exist in a system where water can exist in all three phases simultaneously though it is rarely in a supercritical state. Water is a major power broker.

            4) So my estimate, mathematically correct or not, and inputs factual or not, is simply based on the notion that q = m*c*dT. I have faith in that notion as I have successfully applied it to reality, year over year.

            5) Based on an assumed mass of atm, specific heat of atm, dT of atm I arrive at the net BTU input required to explain the alleged change. Dividing that by 150 years I arrive at the power needed to drive the change which is not much…it’s less power than I’ve helped put on-line in 31 yrs…in other words I have a real sense of what 18 GW means, ain’t much but is a little.

            6) I take the estimated power and spread it out over the surface area (also info at random from the internet) of the planet and arrive at a very small number, math correct or not and inputs askance, it’s the same engineering units as yours…apples to apples. I’m within 2 orders of magnitude of your line of reasoning. But my number is an “all in” number and cannot distinguish contributions from H2O or CO2 or the sun or anything else.

            7) I agree insolation is the power source and water is the power broker.

            8) SST is hideously complex in my limited exp. Just from looking at thermal transients in steam lines I can tell you quantifying SST mechanisms to the point where you can split the hair you are trying to split will be near impossible or at least credibly disputable (Phil for example).

            9) Thermal diffusivity in metals and other materials (compare liquid water to air for example) is another way of thinking about how light energy scatters…diffusivity hints that thermal energy can travel “upstream” of the main flow which is what the alarmists hang their hats on. Yes, you can get down to quantum theory which I have total faith in but, other than principal, is way beyond my quantitative skill set.

            10) Your description of little mirrors and sun diffused by fog is adequate for purposes of the discussion and makes perfect sense. Which ways the O’s wobble on the C is too much detail until the fundamental order of magnitude of CO2’s ability, or not, to influence atm temperature is firmly quantified minus political or technical bias.

            11) I am in your camp and the Steele camp that the oceans call the shots. It is still imperative that someone with your interest and skill set show us the true nature of a trace of CO2 in a large supercritical sea being irradiated by a yellow dwarf. An now appears to be a very good time to demonstrate that!

          • meggs
            “1) My interpretation of NOAA data for Asheville, NC leads me to believe that temperature there has been trending upward for the past 150 years at the modest rate of 0.03F/yr. Fact or fiction I do not know”

            Three reactions:
            1) isn’t the temp rocking up and down in Asheville? Up some, down some over 150 years? That is different than saying it is trending up, which phrase contains the implication of a straight line with confirmed abnormal warming, playing into the hands of cherry-picked start and end dates;
            2) the organic sine curve for the entire US shows the rocking through 4 degrees Fahrenheit. But larger, the two full cycles of rocking show a settling-down, which is a pure Holocene motion.
            3) I’ll look at the Ashville data and make a chart later tonight.

            Here’s the sine wave:
            http://theearthintime.com

            Cheers
            windlord-sun

          • re rxn 1) Yes, sawtooth similar though more chaotic than CO2 ppm in AK. However the overall trend in sensible T is up in NC, just like SP CO2. But that being said the overall trend in precip is also way up. So, what is counter-intuitive to most is the warming of the atm due to phase change resulting in transient mass transfer from the ocean to the atm means simply that the sink is cooling but must transfer thru the supercritical compressible sea above made even more complex by this really weird stuff called H2O which insists on maintaining a vapor dome above all. The vapor dome rules and I don’t envy Henry in trying to parse the effect of supercritical CO2 out of the larger subcritical water vapor dome…which is not noise, it is reality…H2O being around the saturation lines tends to eclipse all else and gives rise to such beings as trees and corals and all sorts of other things.

            re rxn 2) agree with the rock, entirely natural. But for purposes of the political discussion is it vitally important that that be made clear to the average voter. And the contribution that CO2 has or has not made to the rock. Personally, I’ll go with Steele, even if the rise is real and it well could be as it has happened before and as you contend, can Henry tease out the effect of CO2 rise during the same period of history? And even if he can I’ve yet to read the link cited by McRae that claims transient analysis shows that human contribution to the atm CO2 mass budget has recently been around 8%. What is that 8% really worth in the great scheme of things? To me it may be around nothing. But that does not win elections. The human mass contribution to atm CO2 and its ensuing effect on sensible T must be quantified such that the average voter gets it. Simple as that.

            3) I lack the skill to cut and paste my Asheville NOAA graph into this blog though have tried. My sensible T observation is based on the NOAA published “average” per annum. If factual, it’s gone up. Spending most of my life in this region I am inclined to believe that. It now rains more and snows less than it used to. With the Pb out of the gasoline however, in spite of jacked up CO2, the local plant life everywhere, including the high ridges, is doing much better discounting the intrusion of diseases and competitors introduced by globalizm.

          • Hi meggs,

            I plotted Asheville TMAX Fahrenheit per GHCN. There is no Asheville station in USHCN. When I saw the Asheville plot it went against my religion. Upward only since the 1970s ice age.

            So, I found three other stations nearby, plotted them, for both USHCN and GHCN. The resulting sawtooth is in my image below.

            The other stations show a relationship to the organic sine curve (my religion) but Asheville does not. This could be UHI in play. Certainly Asheville has developed far more and faster than the other stations’ areas. However, supposedly NOAA has already adjusted this dataset for UHI. So … ?

            CAVEAT: this data is not raw data. It is verbatim right out of NOAA downloads, and therefore has been adjusted.

            https://theearthintime.com/nc.jpg

            The GHCN Asheville station has this for Lat/Long: 35.6536 -82.5728 which appears to be north of town and just to the east of i-26. Is that right?

          • Windlord: The coordinates land me at what looks like house with a swimming pool…I don’t see a weather station. But, yes, those coords land me E of I-26 and N of downtown Asheville. If the data is adjusted it has no meaning to me. Asheville leans rather left as well and very sympathetic to the GW cause in words though not in action. UHI might explain but the coords you cited land you above I-26 so if there is a weather station there it could be in an upslope draft of warm air off the interstate. Asheville is in a bowl topographically and occasionally the temperature is warmer in the bowl than at lower elevations in SC & TN. The steady trend up could be topography + machine related. Or change in prevailing winds shoving warmer air into the bowl. Or data adjustment. Or as someone once suggested, stick a thermometer in a bucket of water and check it once a day at the same time, the water being an integrator, maybe the Asheville bowl acts like an integrator. No way to know. Here’s what I’ve been following for Asheville, fact or fiction:
            https://www.weather.gov/media/gsp/Climate/AVL/newAVLmonthlyTobs.pdf
            https://www.weather.gov/media/gsp/Climate/AVL/newAVLmonthlyPobs_htm.pdf

          • meiggs,

            This is a piece about CO2, so I won’t extend the examination of temp. I leave off with a conjecture that there’s something odd in Asheville.

            About your sentence “If the data is adjusted it has no meaning to me.” The only reason I don’t give up on plotting this data is that even with NOAA’s adjustments, the claim “there is no abnormal warming” remains evident.

            About your sentence “Asheville leans rather left as well and very sympathetic to the GW cause” …

            I had a cynical smile when I read this from you earlier …
            “[..] the local plant life everywhere, including the high ridges, is doing much better discounting the intrusion of diseases and competitors introduced by globalizm.”
            … and mapped the ‘diseases and competitors’ to the influx of the aforementioned ‘left and sympathetic’ intrusions!

          • Phil.
            you seem to think that water vapor is not a gas. Therefore my observations / examples are not ‘valid’. We had same arguments about this before…. I am not sure if it helps anything going into discussion with you. I trust MODTRAN as much as I trust SpectralCalc. Spectral is what you recommended to me some time ago. Remember? With the NIST file I proved that SpectralCalc was wrong. It appears to me Spectral was made especially to teach learners that CO2 is ‘warming’ the atmosphere.

            I am a lab. person myself and I worked almost my whole life with spectroscopy, including FTIR, UV/Visible and AAS. I am puzzled by your comments. I am a forgetful person, hence I always forgot to switch all instruments off. In the case of me measuring CO2 in N2 with FTIR at 4.3 um, if there were any thermalization, and the instrument standing on for so long, with the bombardment of IR light, would you not expect that the holder with the sample should have exploded?
            I never had any such problems….with any instrument. Never ever noticed the holder with sample getting much warmer, even standing on for days on end.
            When measuring in the visible region, I once secretly looked into the cuvette holder to see what happens when you turn the wavelength dial slowly to the wavelength where I was supposed to measure. What I saw happening is exactly as I described: the light comes back to you, to the direction of the source, but also scattering somewhat to the left and to the right and all around. You never observed this? It is real nature. 62.5% in the direction of the light source. Just like I told you. But then you always disagree with that. So why would you continue going into discussion with me? I cannot change my way of thinking because I have to stick with what I am seeing happening. You prefer to stick to your ‘books’. Is that not so?
            Did you ever read the full Turnbull report and do you understand it? Do you understand the analysis I made of the spectrum of CO2 and why I did this>? Did you see that in Turnbull et all there is more absorption below 2.6 um that is not even shown in the NIST file?
            Did you see the graph showing you the transmittance of the CO2 molecule? Do you really understand the principle of absorption and subsequent re-radiation (extinction)?
            Except for the physical water in the atmosphere (i.e. clouds, water (l), water (s)) there really is no thermalization. Or not much. Ozon is deflecting. No thermalisation there either.
            But heh, that is just my opinion.

            I would have loved to see your calculation showing me how much warming is caused by 0.01% CO2. But you always like to focus on something that you had see me write that is ‘wrong’. You never accept a challenge. I wonder if ever you calculated what I am interested in knowing. What did you think of the calculation by meiggs?

            Anyway, death, where is your sting? Happy Easter to all my friends and foes!
            BW
            hp

      • Don K – April 9, 2020 at 4:01 pm

        As it happens, the Earth’s atmosphere is composed almost entirely of such gases — Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon. Their IR radiative activity is said to be detectable, but VERY low.

        But, but, but, …… Don K, ……

        In order, the most abundant greenhouse gases in Earth’s atmosphere are:

        Oxygen (O2) —— 20.95% ——– 209,500 ppm
        Water vapor (H2O) ——– 0 to 4% —— 0 to 40,000 ppm
        Carbon dioxide (CO2) —- 0.0400% ————– 400 ppm
        Methane (CH4) ———– 0.00017% ————– 1.7 ppm
        Nitrous oxide (N2O) —— 0.00003% ————– 0.3 ppm
        Ozone (O3) —————- 0.000004% ———— 0.04 ppm
        IR radiation frequencies of the above greenhouse gases

        Don K, …. even though the IR radiative activity is VERY low, ….. the 209,500 ppm of atmospheric oxygen (O2) should cause one ell of a lot more “warming” than 400 ppm of atmospheric CO2, …… don’tja think?

        209,500 molecules verses 400 molecules.

        • Samuel

          Your logic is fine. But the best (well … actually only) quantitative estimate I have been able to find for how weak the radiation from N2 is, is down five (5) orders of magnitude. That appears to be less than one 20th the intensity of CO2 radiation and even further below H2O which has solid and liquid phase particulates floating around the atmosphere. Solids and liquids actually seem to behave a bit like “black bodies” whereas simple gases surely don’t at Earthly temperatures. Oxygen might be a little more active as there are small amounts of lightning generated Ozone(O3) in the lower atmosphere. I think Ozone has meaningful rotational and vibrational modes. But there isn’t very much of it because it’s quite reactive chemically and doesn’t last long after creation.

          Overall when they say that the radiation interaction from non-radiative gases is low, they seem to be serious.

          • Don K – April 10, 2020 at 11:31 pm

            Your logic is fine. But the best (well … actually only) quantitative estimate I have been able to find for how weak the radiation from N2 (sic O2) is, is down five (5) orders of magnitude. That appears to be less than one 20th the intensity of CO2 radiation

            So, Don K, ….. if the O2 molecule only has 1/20th the IR absorption/emission intensity of the CO2 molecule, ……. and there is 52.3 orders of magnitude greater quantity of atmospheric O2 molecules than there are of atmospheric CO2 molecules, …… which of the above two atmospheric gases do you suppose is absorbing/emitting the mostest IR thermal (heat) energy?

            209,500/400 = 523.75‬ ……. 523.75/10 = 52.3 orders of magnitude

            So, iffen molecule per molecule, O2 is only 1/20th as potent as CO2, …. but there is 523 times more O2 molecules than there are CO2 molecules, ….. therefore, the atmospheric O2 is 52 times more potent “greenhouse” gas than the atmospheric CO2

            So, it appears that CO2 is still “the little end of nothing

            Now talk about brilliant statements, to wit:

            they say that the radiation interaction from non-radiative gases is low, they seem to be serious

        • If you care to agree, if CO2 does not interact much with the other gases, the other gases are IR inactive, then the energy trap is set by the inactive gases.

          I’d rethink the meaning of “greenhouse gas”, which not the IR active one but in my view the IR inactive gases!

      • Where I have questions and you might as well, is with CO2. I think (maybe I’m wrong) that the strong lines in the CO2 IR spectrum come from activation of vibrational and rotational modes in the CO2 molecule. But from what I read, these are first excited states — one step above the ground state. And one apparently one has to consider (yechhh) quantum mechanics which severely constrains how much energy can be transferred to/from that transition by interaction with photons.

        The photons in question involve a ro-vibronic transition, an excitation to the first vibrationally excited state with rotational fine structure. That excited state has an average lifetime on the order of millisecs, during that time the CO2 molecule undergoes about 10 collisions per nanosec. Those collisions gradually chip away the excess energy a.k.a. thermalisation.

        At this point, I’m not sure that energy gained and lost by CO2 by IR radiation can be effectively transferred to/from other gas molecules by collisions. If it can’t (at Earth atmosphere temperatures and pressures), then the energy is real enough, but it presumably represents latent heat (doesn’t show up on thermometers) rather than sensible heat.

        Ultimately it’s kinetic energy.

        • Thanks Phil. I’ll check that out. My impression is that quantum mechanics wouldn’t allow the virbrational and rotational energy at those energy levels to be “chipped away”. You can lose all of it. Or none of it. But not little bits.

          But as I freely acknowledge, I’m awful at physics. So checking it out will take me weeks or months.

          But, thanks.

          • The point is that the separation between the vibrational levels is relatively large and between each vibrational level there are a large number of closely spaced rotational levels.
            It is possible for a collision to remove some of that energy and drop the molecule to a different ro-vib state, it’s called ‘collisional quenching’. At the earth’s atmospheric pressure there are millions of collisions taking place during the normal radiative lifetime of the excited state. That’s why aurorae are observed at high altitude, they’re quenched lower down in the atmosphere.

          • Don, back in the day in my research lab I did some Laser Induced Fluorescence measurements of gas phase species. The species was excited using a laser tuned to a particular vibrational energy level and observing the light emitted. If the pressure was increased by adding an inert gas, then the light emitted went down due to collisional quenching. Check out Stern-Volmer.

  2. People are not driving to work or around due to the recent shutdown orders. That will show a change, far more so than airline flights.

    • Yes, it should show, and rather quickly. NO2 has fallen dramatically over cities for example, CO2 must follow.

        • Yes, but if manmade CO2 is so small it cannot be seen by measurement, then is manmade CO2 important at all?

        • CO2 has other emission sources.

          Shur nuff, Gerald Machnee, …… and termites are responsible for ten times (10X) more CO2 ending up in the atmosphere …… than humans are responsible for.

          • Termites contribute about 2% of the annual total, according to studies that evaluated both Co2 and methane from termites. Humans contribute about 3% according to published studies. I use 5% since it is easier for me to remember and I err on the high side. Still, termites are a significant source of Co2. But I do not believe for a second that Co2 has anything to do with climate. There are billions of molecules at the surface that radiate constantly for any one photon from Co2. That would be like trying to cook food by looking at it.

    • But still no indication in the CO2 figures. And by the propaganda fro the Greenies airlines emit so much CO2 that they should be banned for all except those Greenies going to conferences in exotic places.

    • The CO2 is not responding to Chicom-19. When everyone is hooked up to the ventilators then the CO2 output of each individual can be controlled. There is just not enough government control. That is the biggest problem.

    • People are staying home and using more energy then they would if they went to work. While personal auto emissions are reduced, commercial emissions are mostly unchanged, or even higher with all the delivery services being used. There may be a measurable net effect, but probably not much, especially since discretionary travel emissions are a tiny part of the CO2 emissions by China and India.

      What this is telling us is that even turning off the electricity during the day when everyone is home under covid-19 like restrictions wouldn’t be sufficient to meet what the CAGW alarmists want.

  3. Hell, the Hudson River in NYC, the River Thames in London, and Seine in Paris could all freeze over tomorrow (mid-April) and for the Left and their lackey rentseeker climate modelers it would still be decried as more evidence of Climate Change from CO2.

    Climate Change ceased being about science over 20 years ago with the hockey stick lie in IPCC TAR (AR3).
    It is all about climate scam policy to impoverish the affluent western middle class. A policy deeply funded by elitism billionaires and supported politically by socialists wannabe authoritarians. They are giving that authoritarianism a Test Drive right now with the epidemic inspired martial law.

    • Billionaires and commies sharing a common goal? Uh huh. Not all billionaires though, right?

      Btw, great to see at least someone is sticking up for that downtrodden, disadvantaged, silenced, disinfranchised cohort of global victims: affluent westerners, so hard done by.

        • Loydo will stand in front of your tank, then disappear forever, just like tinamen square. Chau!

        • Lost my job when Obama imposed the unconstitutional ACA on Americans and have not found gainful employment since! I’ll just let you imagine how much I find that man extrordinarily repugnant, along with all the Democrats that implemented that excellent example of job-killing socialism!

          • Oh, and isn’t it interesting to see the lengths to which some Democrat governors and socialist leaders in other countries will use this crisis to implement their dreams of a leftist Nirvana, generally to the detriment of their fellow citizens?

            I relish opportunities like this that expose the Greenies and Watermelons for their foolish policies that push their socialist, even communist, agenda but that do nothing to improve the environment or the challenges of humanity!

            I’ve heard it called “The Great Awakening”!

      • Not all billionaires are. Communists, but many Communists are billionaires. It’s not an empty set on Venn diagram. Bernie is not yet a billionaire, but he’s got more time on his hands now. ,😀

      • I think we are all well aware of many billionaires and companies getting richer from all of this Loydo, pretty much have to be living under a rock not to notice this?
        That is why this is such an odd couple.

      • Loydo,
        You should educate yourself on history and current world affairs.

        Putin has his billionaire oligarchs. Xi has his billionaire techies and all are ChiComm Party members. If any of them step out of line, they usually have their assets seized and they disappear. There is plenty of recent examples of this in both Xi’s China and Putin’s Russia.
        Hitler and Mussolini both had their rich industrialists feeding off the cronyism and war machine profits, most joined the Nazi party to help get contracts and access to materials needed for production. Any who didn’t like it were either silent or silenced.
        Henry Ford was a great admirer of how Hitler and the very efficient Germans were at pulling Germany out the Depression. Eugenics was always a favorite passion for the Progressives of the 1920’s-1930’s. Hitler and his goons just took it to its logical conclusion, and thus has fallen out of favor. But today’s Left still embraces it by promoting abortion in the inner cities, especially minorities.

        Crony capitalism works very well in modern autocratic states because it uses ruthless style of capitalism to promote production efficiency, while enriching the very top, that the pure communist system can’t, an intractable problem which befelled the USSR and top-down 5 year plans because of massive bureaucratic inefficiencies.

        • If discrimination can be proved thru percentages regardless of intention, then why isn’t the left’s push to abort black unborns not considered genocide regardless of their intention.

      • Notwithstanding Loydo – the jealous bigot who lives in stereotypes – we do have a billionaire who has been at odds with the elites his entire life, who happens to be in office.

        And go figure – life for the common-man improved. Dramatically.

      • Loydo, I wish you would give these comments a rest. You come in, do a drive by accusation or statement with no backing or inherent interest, and drop off. Honestly, What’s the point? No one is taking you seriously anymore. I don’t see how what you are doing can be remotely satisfying to you at this point. You barely get any answers these days, except for a couple of one-liners.
        I personally enjoy a robust discussion, and would very much look forward to that. But you’re not providing it.
        Just figured I’d point this out to you.

    • We are heading for snow and down to -5C overnights in Ottawa, Canada through the weekend, certainly, bordering states will see something similar. The last few springs have been cooler like this but I’m sure the global gov dreamers will will be happy to blame the reduced ’emissions’ from cov19.

      Regarding correcting for ENSO, this will be made less effective because of the large cold SST regions outside of the narrow ENSO strips along the equator. i.e. we have de jure ENSO neutral conditions but de facto La Nina effects.

    • Actually, the current shutdown is a pretty good experimental representation of what would happen if we went worldwide Green New Deal. If jack-squat happens to atmospheric CO2, that should put paid to this nonsense for once and all. But only if WE PUT THE DATA OUT THERE. As long as we let alarmist narratives control the discussion, we’ll always be fighting a rear-guard action.

  4. If there was going to be any detectable change from reduced economic activity it would be a reduction in global dimming from reduced aerosol masking, since the residence time of SO4 is days and weeks – a tiny fraction of CO2’s. In other words a warming effect.

  5. It could be that the increase in atmospheric content of carbon dioxide is more concerned about how warm the oceans are rather than if we burn fossil fuels.

    • Couldn’t agree more. I believe (feeling not scientific) that there will be only a tiny granular change in the ML readings, if any. Anthropogenic Input to royal CO2 is mere noise on this distribution – nature is the main thrust. Always has been and always will be.

  6. Roy,
    “What we are looking for is any evidence of a decline in the atmospheric CO2 content that would be strong enough to attribute to the economic downturn. As can be seen, the latest CO2 data show a slight downturn”

    Why a decline? If emissions went all the way to zero, you’d expect the atmospheric CO2 content to then be unchanging, not in decline. But there is still residual variation of unknown cause, and the slope is in fact downward. That can’t be attributed to emissions change (emissions won’t be negative). It certainly isn’t evidence that emissions have not reduced.

    • I wouldn’t be looking for a fall in the atmospheric CO2 concentration, but a slowing of the rate of increase should be apparent if the proposition that the increasing CO2 concentration is overwhelmingly due to human emissions is valid.

          • Yes, an apparent decrease in the increase, Nick! Congratulations!

            But at what cost?

            Last week, the US lost six million jobs; this week it repeats with another six million lost, for a total of twelve million jobs lost so far!

            And we can expect to see another six million jobs lost next week and the next, until a significant portion of our 160 million jobs are lost! Certainly the economy won’t turn around for another month or two at best, so we could easily lose another 50 million jobs, pushing the total to 60 MILLION JOBS LOST, or about 40% of the total we had just two months ago!

            But that isn’t all!

            No, consider the innumerable consequential bankruptcies, foreclosures, divorces, heart attacks and suicides! Families destroyed, careers destroyed, lives destroyed, and children adversely affected!

            Millions and millions of them, Nick!

            I hope you’re happy!

            Oh, could you estimate the decline in CO2 for us?…It’s so small I can’t put a number to it! And while you’re at it, could you run a cost/benefit analysis on your precious decline? I’ve given you mine!

            And do it globally, too, considering that the impact to the US economy and our society can be multiplied by four to six times to approximate global destruction!

            And you have a good day!

    • Nick you obviously need a coffee your statement basically says there is no CO2 turnover and that any CO2 molecule we put up there stays there forever 🙂

      So there are no sinks and CO2 only ever increases … so how did the historic CO2 reductions occur … aliens?

      • since co2 residence time in the atmosphere is greater than 5 years, would you really expect to see a reduction after only a couple of months of CO2 reduction (it is not even zero – power stations and flaring of gas and transport are still here)

      • There are sinks ….. and sources.

        I disagree slightly with Nick. If humans stopped all fossil fuel burning for a whole year I’d expect a small reduction (~1 ppm) of atmospheric CO2.

        • The human part of CO2 emissions is only about 5% of the total. The other 95%+ is entirely natural. So, if humans stopped all activity, the most that could be seen is a reduction of about 5%. However, earth’s variability is about 15% per year, so it would undoubtedly be unimpressive.
          Given that it has been established multiple times that earth’s CO2 emission FOLLOWS temperature change, then a reduction in CO2 would have no impact whatsoever on climate. Climate is driven by earth, not by humans…sheesh!

          • How is 5% determined?

            And the pre-industrial base line, how credible is that?

            How credible are the Mauna Loa readings…any QA/QC of the data that would be accepted by a skeptic?

            After all, Mauna Loa is an active volcano…

          • john shotsky, you can’t just blurt out the truth like that…some delicate liberal might accidentally read that and be traumatized. sheesh!

          • The reason the human contribution is “only” about 5% is due to the annual carbon cycle. This means that human total. total in the atmosphere will be similar to the annual emissions. However the human contribution that is re-absorbed replaces the natural CO2 that would have been absorbed – and so the atmospheric concentration still increases.

            Human C)2 emission are responsible for about 40% of the total since they either remain in the atmosphere or are returned to the land & oceans INSTEAD of natural CO2.

          • Finn. — And you know this how? Does manmade CO2 have a sale tag on it?

            CO2 is CO2. Gaia doesn’t know or care where it comes from.

          • “How is 5% determined?”
            By very poor arithmetic. There are natural exchange processes that have been going on for millennia, with no nett result. CO2 is reduced by photosynthesis; the products are subsequently oxidised (“emission”). CO2 dissolves in the sea as it cools as winter comes on, in summer it returns to the air. The 95% is calculated by adding all the “emission” parts of these exchanges, without the balancing fluxes the other way.

            Human emissions have no countervailing flux to balance them. Fossil fuels are dug up and burned. Since we have been emitting, CO2 has been going up and up.

          • Basic maths and facts for you to check Nick .. see how you go

            Fact 1) There is currently 3210 gigatonnes of CO2 in the Atmosphere
            Fact 2) Current human CO2 emission per year is 30 gigatonnes of CO2
            Fact 3) IPCC says 1870 to 2014, cumulative carbon emissions totaled about 545 GtC.

            Now divid Fact1 by fact2 = 107 years
            We would need to be emitting for 107 years at 30 gigatonnes of CO2 to put all that CO2 up there which we obviously haven’t and there are sinks.

            Fact3/Fact1 * 100 = 16.9%
            Again that assumes that every CO2 molecule put up there by man is still there.

            So now explain how you are going to get the current Human contribution above 17%
            You can project 30Gt per year forward 80 years to the year 2100 and you still wont even get close to 50%.

            Sorry Nick you are making stuff up and it fails basic maths and fact checks.

          • “Fact3/Fact1 * 100 = 16.9%”
            “it fails basic maths”

            You are failing basic science. Fact 1 has tonnes of CO2, fact 3 has tonnes of C. Not the same. The correct ratio is 16.9*44/12=62%

            “We would need to be emitting for 107 years at 30 gigatonnes of CO2 to put all that CO2 up there which we obviously haven’t “
            No-one said we put all that CO2 there. There was about 280 ppm before we started; there are about 410 now. The difference is 130, corresponding to 1018 Gtons CO2, or 34 years at 30 Gtons/year. That is actually about right; about half what we emitted went into the sea.

            Proper arithmetic set out here.

          • I have no issue with correcting FACT 3 … don’t do a Stokes deflection stay with it.
            So Fact3 is now 1018 Gtons CO2 … no issue I accept it.

            So Fact3/Fact1 * 100 = 1018/3210 = 31.7% human created CO2
            Remember none of the human made CO2 in that has been turned over every human CO2 molecule is magic and still up there but that is our entire historic maximum possible impact.

            Lets walk it forward 80 years at 30Gt of C02 per year = 2400GT more so now 5600GT.
            We add the 2400Gt to the 1018 Gt current
            (1018+2400)/(3210+2400) * 100 = 60%

            So even by the year 2100 burning CO2 at current levels and none of the magic human CO2 was turned over .. humans still only end putting 60% up there.

            The point is if you want to call CO2 a pollutant and a problem thus apportion blame then Nature is a problem as well. I have given Nature a free pass thru all this but if you really want to call CO2 a pollutant you can’t it is just as bad as us.

          • meiggs
            When we started emitting, the atmosphere had a near stable 280 ppm CO2, which is 2187 Gt CO2. It didn’t change with “natural emissions”, because these have to balance sinks; they are just moving the same carbon around. So the amount we added is almost equal to what had been there. However, just under half remained (airborne fraction), leading to the 130 ppm rise.

          • Nick Stokes

            This is a fairy tale: “near stable 280.”
            Denial. Denialer. Denialist. Denialism. Deny.
            StraightStick280 is an insult the world.

            CO2 levels have rocked back and forth all Holocene between 250 and 380 PPM, with spikes to 400 early on. Ice cores are blind to this, because ice can’t resolve spikes and sharp falls. So Mr. Stokes fairy tale is dead. However, it does not matter – there is no climate crisis due to human-release, no matter how much we spew.

            To others: The End Is Near. The CO2-280 denialists will be hoisted on their own petard. This ‘pause’ is going to reveal the truth. They staked it all on one measurement, and when it does not behave, despite the fact that they will construct fantasias about why not, the truth will out. The house of cards will collapse. They did not heed the danger of SinglePointOfFailure.

            Does anyone have this knowledge: how many stations are there in this world that are measuring the PPM of CO2 at this moment with the same type of gear as Keeling?. a) do they agree with Mauna Loa?; b) do they measure every day?; c) do we trust them all to be honest; and d) do any of them report a ding in the slope?

          • “CO2 levels have rocked back and forth all Holocene between 250 and 380 PPM, with spikes to 400 early on. Ice cores are blind to this”

            So how do you know?

            For the last millennia, Law Dome data has very high resolution. Here is a plot of the last millennium. Before 1850, all readings are between 270 and 280 ppm.

          • Mr. Stokes, you are impervious to anyone’s point. Why did you direct me to and ice core reading?

            I sincerely want to understand this … I made an emphatic claim that ice core readings, by their very nature, are slush. They cannot resolve short spikes. Therefore, your claim of “steady 280” is void.

            I left myseld wide open for challenge with that claim. I did that on purpose. But instead of blasting me on that claim, you just ignore my point, and tell me to look at an ice core interpretation.

            Answer this: do you fully get it, and this gambit you do to just jiggle out of the way is to annoy people? Or do you really not know how to respond to another’s claim?

            I would appreciate it if you respond without jiggling away from that sentence. Thank You.

          • “you just ignore my point”
            No. I asked you how do you know. You could try to answer that.

            The ice core data shows many readings, uniformly between 270 and 280 ppm. These are from 3 separate cores. The readings are not slush.

          • It doesn’t matter what fictional number I allow your for FACT3 it comes down to there is a hell of a lot of Natural carbon in the system.

            In the entire argument I have made all man made CO2 stay in the atmosphere for ever while “natural CO2” is allowed to turn over and you will still on get to 50% now and 70% in 80 years time.

            Now lets get to the point … if it really is a problem there is a huge amount of CO2 that is given a free pass just because it is natural. So if you want us to cut human emissions we should also be looking at cutting natures. I get people of Nicks age yearn for a change back to the good old days when there were several billion less humans but it isn’t going to happen. You want the world to make tough decisions because it’s the end of the world then fine but then there should be nothing off limits including nature.

          • Nick Stokes

            You are a master. Really. I have never encountered anything this slick.

            Here’s how slick: I can’t voice my opinion on “are you that obtuse from confusion in a fogged brain, or are you a sharp-as-knife trickster to annoy?” If I voiced my opinion, it would just be putting the ball on a tee for you to huumph over the fence and end the game.

            So, instead, I’ll just laugh at your thrash.

  7. If the lockdowns continue for another month, then there MUST be a noticeable downturn by May/June. If there isn’t then we can be certain that the increase in CO2 over the past 100 years is not entirely anthropogenic.

  8. There is no way a decline in CO2 levels could be seen on that graph. Looking at the numbers CO2 rises
    by about 2ppm per year due to human activities. Taking Dr. Spencer’s suggestion of a 27% decrease in flights
    in March as a typical number for all human activities means that CO2 levels would be decreased by 0.05ppm
    compared to last year for March. The levels on the graph shown are in terms of 2ppm so you have to split
    each vertical grid into 20 by eye and then see if there is any decrease. Which is just not realistic.

    • Izaak, should one conclude from your argument that if 27% reduction in flights is equivalent to 0.05ppm then a complete banning of all flights in the future , as per the Green Deal, would shave 0.2ppm off the annual rise in CO2. This seems a very small advantage to be placed against the disadvantages for business and holiday travellers . Furthermore it suggests that the airport tax applied in many countries is not justified, that none of us should feel guilty about flyimg whether for busines or holiday , and that Greta’s stunt in sailing across the Atlantic instead of flying was just silly.

      • mikewaite April 9, 2020 at 1:39 am
        “Greta’s stunt in sailing across the Atlantic instead of flying was just silly.”
        ————————
        Of course it was as far as environmental improvement.
        BUT
        Can you imagine the backlash on here if she had flown
        ALSO
        She has principles that she follows for her life.

        Is this bad?

        • As she seeks to impose her “principles” on everybody, I would say yes. It is bad.

          • ‘she seeks to impose her “principles” on everybody’

            Like all well-trained fascists.

  9. “reduce atmospheric CO2 would have to wait many years — even decades — before we would see the impact of a large economic downturn on global temperatures”

    Why would it take decades for a forcing from CO2 to affect land surface temperatures when it only takes a few hours for a forcing from the sun to take effect?

    It wont. There is no lag in the system, this was made up to explain the lack of warming since 1999.

  10. To give you a background as to how I arrived at an analysis of the spectrum of CO2, just click on my name to read my comprehensive report on the matter.

  11. CO2 increase is not entirely from humans. 3-50% is. It is suspect to say the least why it is ONLY the human CO2 that is the thermostat that dials in global temperatures/ “climate change” especially when the groups plugging the notion are instisting that paying money to them will fix the “problem.” It is pure propaganda to plug the notion that it is only the human component of CO2 increase that causes some problem that we are not even allowed to challenge.

  12. “those who view the economic downturn as an opportunity to reduce atmospheric CO2 would have to wait many years — even decades — before we would see the impact of a large economic downturn on global temperatures, ”

    This may be the case with temperature, but what about air pollution? With the 90 per cent close down of industry across the world and 90 per cent of diesel and petrol engines out of use worldwide, and with a virtual shut down of all air travel together with much of the shipping across the world, we should surely see an almost immediate effect all of this has on air pollution, which, if the Green fanatics are correct, should therefore have an immediate effect on the World’s health as far as those with respiratory illnesses are concerned. Do we know whether anyone has so far come up with current credible air pollution statistics or its effect on the worlds health?

  13. Did you know the “Comment” field doesn’t have a “*” but it is a required field?
    P.S. Ignore me, I’ve had too many beverages, just had a chuckle at that.

    • Thanks for the chuckle Cameron. Your comment is like a drunk text 🤓

      And it is true, you cannot post with the comment field left blank.

  14. The alarmist’s strategy is to control global temperature to below 2degC (Paris) or 1.5degsC (SR1.5) above pre industrial levels at 2100AD. This is to be achieved by reducing the CO2 level by Green New Deals or by (in U.K.) Lord Deben’s CC Committee lunatic zero carbon proposals costing each household £100,000 (GWPF est) . So here we think it will be ‘decades’ of impoverishment before any CO2 reduction will be observed? Year 2100 looming up fastish , yeah? Drivelling nonsense. Where did I put my yellow jackets?

  15. Trying to understand the current models representation/understanding of mans impact on atmospheric CO2 levels and out contribution to the “rise”.

    So my question is, if humanity and our co2 levels remained at pre-industrial levels with basically no added contribution to the atmosphere, what would we expect the current levels of CO2 to be? Would they still be rising, all-be-it at a lower rate, or would they still be at pre-industrial levels, remaining essentially constant?

    Is that documented somewhere?

  16. “What we are looking for is any evidence of a decline in the atmospheric CO”

    I don’t understand the premise: looking for a decline, especially one month after some changes in global CO2 production. Would the first test not be a stop in the rise? Which seems to be confirmed.

    If we take as gospel, for the sake or argument, that global emissions from fossil fuel and industry add 10 GtC yearly on top of all other CO2 budgets, then even a deeply affected industry will certainly still add part of that.

    Now why would we see reduction happen in the suggested time frames? Do CO2 sinks function that fast? If it could be a few GtC this won’t mean we could even start seeing reductions at this stage. Looking for a decline seems to be a strange premise for a question. On which ground a decline would be expected?

  17. http://www.drroyspencer.com/2020/03/is-the-covid-19-economic-downturn-affecting-atmospheric-co2-mauna-loa-data-say-not-yet/#comment-453220

    If Ed Berry is correct in this paper, human CO2 emissions play a minor part in the total increase in atmospheric CO2 and any human-caused downturn will be difficult to detect.
    Regards, Allan

    From the Abstract:
    “Human emissions through 2019 have added only 31 ppm to atmospheric CO2 while nature has added 100 ppm.”

    PREPRINT: “THE PHYSICS MODEL CARBON CYCLE FOR HUMAN CO2”
    by Edwin X Berry, Ph.D., Physics
    https://edberry.com/blog/climate/climate-physics/human-co2-has-little-effect-on-the-carbon-cycle/

    ABSTRACT
    The scientific basis for the effect of human carbon dioxide on atmospheric carbon dioxide rests upon correctly calculating the human carbon cycle. This paper uses the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) carbon-cycle data and allows IPCC’s assumption that the CO2 level in 1750 was 280 ppm. It derives a framework to calculate carbon cycles. It makes minor corrections to IPCC’s time constants for the natural carbon cycle to make IPCC’s flows consistent with its levels. It shows IPCC’s human carbon cycle contains significant, obvious errors. It uses IPCC’s time constants for natural carbon to recalculate the human carbon cycle. The human and natural time constants must be the same because nature must treat human and natural carbon the same. The results show human emissions have added a negligible one percent to the carbon in the carbon cycle while nature has added 3 percent, likely due to natural warming since the Little Ice Age. Human emissions through 2019 have added only 31 ppm to atmospheric CO2 while nature has added 100 ppm. If human emissions were stopped in 2020, then by 2100 only 8 ppm of human CO2 would remain in the atmosphere.

  18. This is actually massive and not some theory or prediction, but live data.

    I’ve often thought that the human proportion as been over exaggerated to the extreme degree.

    We now that is all being exposed.

    End of the Manmade CO2 – Global Warming Scam

  19. This is silly. It would be impossible to detect any change in 3 months. The net accumulation of CO2 human fossil fuel burning is about ~2 ppm per year. So, if fossil fuel burning was halved for a whole year we might detect a 1 ppm increase (rather than 2 ppm) in CO2 concentration. Any change over a 3 month period will be lost in the noise.

      • This could finish up like Neil Sedaka’s “Calendar Girl”:
        “January you set the world on fire…………..”.

      • Perhaps after a year we might note that CO2 hasn’t increased by as much as normal.

        Remember we’re still probably emitting at 1950 levels -even with the shutdowns.

    • You can’t have the argument both ways !

      In past years the MSM has been full of stories of us driving up CO2 levels due to XYZ – well now XYZ is notably reduced this should be noticeable in the live data.

      Slight downturns in past years have been linked many times to either Chinese downturns, recessions or reduced GDP’s – We CV is an extreme event that dwarfs any of these – Its abrupt and its global and its signature should be seen in the data by now if humans the human element of co2 levels were as high as the GW movement makes out.

  20. Roy W. Spencer,

    “Last month I described a simple method for removing the large seasonal cycle from the Mauna Loa CO2 data, and as well as the average effects from El Nino and La Nina”

    • Why would there be a decline? We’re still emitting CO2. It won’t increase by as much but it will probably still increase.

  21. There will be no decline, as expected, since the ManMade CO2 is rather marginal, as most of we already know. It’s highly probable that man is only accountable for 3% of the CO2 production every year or even less. The biosphere dynamics completly offsets this value.
    However wait for “the adjustment” 😀

  22. Can we stop referring to CO2 in the term associated with toxins? Parts per million is used to make a tiny amount sound significant to the gullible masses. The increase in atmospheric CO2 since pre-industrial times of around 130 ppm translates to thirteen thousandths of one percent. It’s background noise. How do you even measure that amount accurately in open atmosphere? If a passing sparrow breathes out about ten meters upwind of the sensor it would make more difference that that.

  23. The Keeling Slope (it is only curving slightly) has be “sloping” for 60 years. There is a standing claim that a proportion of the additional volume, in PPM, is contributed by the human activity of burning fossil fuels.

    An alarm that the human portion is significant and … alarming … must hinge on a claim that the percent is large. Otherwise, the claim would be that Mother Nature is at fault.

    The higher the claim of human contribution (50%?) the more a pause in emissions should ding the slope.

    Two factors: 1) what amount/percent of the human dump is now (of will be soon) paused?; and 2) is there a lag between the contribution moment and registration at Mauna Loa?

    This is a test.

  24. It’s been interesting how the desperate global warming alarmists look at the shutting down of industries world wide and noticed from satellite images how much clearer the air is especially over China. What aggravated me about this comment as a suggestion that we need to reduce CO2 and we could have a cleaner world misdiagnoses an odourless , colourless gas ,with real pollution. Hopefully if Trump’s re-election doesn’t get derailed by the virus in his next term he gets rid of the CO 2 endangerment finding.

  25. I have a new attitude toward the hysterical community:

    “You’re going to do what you’re going to do and there isn’t a damn thing we can do to stop you since you’ll have the full force of the law behind you, so please at least have the decency to shut the hell up about it.”

  26. March 2020 CO2 Levels at Mauna Loa Show No Obvious Effect from Global Economic Downturn
    Why would we expect to? Even if we accept the postulate that any increase in CO2 is attributable to burning fossil fuels, we would expect a 4ppm increase in 1 year – that is only 0.33 ppm per month. The curve is not a straight line (which it would be close to if everything was attributable to burning fossil fuels).
    So how would we be able to measure a decrease of 0.33ppm?

  27. Ironically I think that yesterday’s reading (released today) has just broken the all time high record –
    This is normally met with huge publicity and a fanfare from the Greens, GW crowd and certain media – I bet they remain silent on this as they start to realize that Manmade CO2 makes up about 3% of the total:

    https://www.co2.earth/daily-co2

  28. From google, not sure how accurate that is:
    “Human activities—mostly burning of coal and other fossil fuels, but also cement production, deforestation and other landscape changes—emitted roughly 40 billion metric tons of carbon dioxide in 2015. ”
    So assuming a 20% reduction of this for March 2020 would in about 1 billion metric tons less than expected.

    Wiki: As of 2018, … approximately 3210 gigatonnes of CO2 (equals about 410ppm)
    gigatonnes and billion metric tons are the same unit, so the effect is less 1/1000 per month

    (The ratio gets a bit better if we talk about CO2 above an assumed equilibrium somewhere near 280ppm CO2, but based in that estimate, it will be a couple of months before we see a decline by 1ppm from that effect and we have a natural annual oscillation of about 4ppm)

  29. It’s my fault. The weeds on my hillside are sequestering and growing at a rate more than enough to explain the decrease.

  30. Once we have a few months more data, we can do an analysis to determine what level of CO2 production versus the world-wide production would be required to see at the sensitivity of the instrument at Mauna Loa. This will establish a ceiling value for the contribution of human activity to the much larger non-human produced amount. Perhaps we will be able to detect a significant signal in the data and further refine this value. Currently estimates for the anthropogenic production of CO2 relative to the rest of the world vary from 3-5%, which is entirely too imprecise to risk ruining the world’s economy and causing so much illness, discomfort, malnutrition, and premature deaths.

    • “Currently estimates for the anthropogenic production of CO2 relative to the rest of the world vary from 3-5%”

      Please provide a link showing us how 3 to 5% is determined.

      Stokes above is saying closer to 50%, that’s an order of magnitude higher than your source. And he does provide some math to go with. That said, some math using numbers above:

      Now = 3200 Gt
      3200*(280/410) = 2200 Gt ~107 yrs ago
      Therefore, 3200-2200 = 1000 Gt delta attributed to humans. I read that to mean humans have contributed ~30% to the present CO2 concentration in our atm.
      However, per Stokes humans have liberated 2000 Gt over the period in question.
      Therefore, 1000 – 2000 = negative 1000 Gt…where did it go?
      Plant life?? Sea shells?

      • 3% — 50%

        It’s going to be interesting to see how fungible the claims become during this “pause” in emissions.

        At the root of the AGW position, it is easier to support warming due to “A” if the CO2 consensus is a high number. That way (obviously) the contrast between the putative pre-Keeling reconstructions and the 60-years of measuring is dramatic. Settled. Hockey-whacky.

        However, if no ding in the slope appears, it will be easier to construct alt explanations* why not if the “A” contribution is downsized to be small.

        REALLY interesting.

        * in event of a ding, what if the claim becomes “in response to an easing of emissions, the oceans have been releasing more carbon.” That would be interesting.

        • It will be REALLY fascinating.

          Studying McRae’s link on C balance…finally an actual source to go with the fungible numbers. The sinks may explain Stokes missing 1000 Gt and perhaps much more.

          I do understand transition to equilibrium and occasionally have to make such predictions…how long will it take to warm 100’s of tons of steel along with a little water too boot? Simple problem but the answer still depends on knowing and controlling all the variables you can and then making educated guesses about the variables you cannot control like, say, the weather.

          I’m going to go with McRae’s 8% if The Physics Model Carbon Cycle for Human CO2 makes sense once I’ve had time to digest it.

          • RE: stations
            The Scripps Program shows 14 stations. Link:

            https://scrippsco2.ucsd.edu/data/atmospheric_co2/sampling_stations.html

            I downloaded one set, Alert,CA, which has recorded since 1985. It would take a healthy does of time, energy, and concentration to pull down 14 stations and see:
            a) do the numbers agree with Mauna Loa?
            b) has there been any abnormality in the slope recently?

            I am not available to parse all that out, but someone ought to be watchdogging the stations.

          • Thanks! Downloaded South Pole and Alaska data (aka “consider the extremes” and then guess what may be going on in the middle). Plots interesting, no surprise the SP is a fairly constant rise and AK is a saw tooth wave but following the same trend line. What is interesting is the amplitude of the saw tooth has gone from roughly 13 ppm ca 1962 to 20 ppm in 2020.

            If we accept base line as 280 ppm and the Stokes assertion that humans account for the net gain of 1000 Gt in the past ~ 107 years then human influence is only ~10 Gt/yr.

            Yet the saw tooth in AK is a nominal 124 Gt/yr that I will attribute to causes other than human.

            Speculation:

            1) Alleged human influence on CO2 atm concentration is around 1 order of magnitude less than seasonal fluctuations allegedly at AK.

            2) Plant life and perhaps mollusks presently enjoy favorable conditions. Assuming 550 Gt of biomass on this planet I can say as one who watches nature closely that 124/550 saw tooth could be explained by biological activity but if the oceans are cooling, and based on the winter rain in my region they appear to be, then the oceans may be sponging up a bit of the 124 Gt as well, purely in solution, non-biologic.

            That said, as a skeptic watching the sh*t show on TV and Mauna Loa as well it is still important to understand at this moment:

            1) What is the human contribution to annual CO2 rise opposed to the alleged SP and AK data? 3%? 5%? 8% 30%? 50%? A defensible value does matter at this very moment in history.

            2) Say the human nominal is around 10 Gt/yr then how much has the Coronasarus bit out of that? Should the price of gasoline be our metric, if so it’s dropped ~50% during this scamdemic.

            3) Based on gasoline price say in the last 2 months humans have emitted 1 Gt less than usual. Thus, 415*1/3260 ~= 0.1 ppm negative impact on atm CO2 concentration….too small to measure. In my world anyway.

            4) And, that seems to be what the measurements are showing?

            5) Time for some more Grand QuinQuina!

          • last record Dec 2019:

            CO2 “filled” column

            SP 408 ppm
            AK 417.99 ppm

            Krakatoa eruption will be the reason it keeps rising…for now.

          • meiggs

            Thanks! I’d say those two numbers amount to relative correlation. As always, it is the curving trend I care about, not the spot-on ‘accuracy’ of a single stations’ recordings.

            1) So, 14 stations in the Scripps Program. Can you see any reason why a download and spaghetti chart with 14 lines on it could not be made, say, weekly for the next 2 months, and inspected for dings in the historical slopes?

            2) I notice that their stations are oriented +/- a little on the longitude of the Scripps location in California. What would you guess is the reason for that? [not hinting any conspiracy, just curious]

          • re 14 stations: I looked at the CA (min-point but not Mauna Loa) site but the data appeared to be too fractured to deal with in the free time I have. The SP and AK encompassed about the same time span and were poles apart. But if you are looking at the data as it unfolds from before CV to whenever CV settles out then I still think we are looking at a ~0.1 ppm human impact…maybe the data is that precise but I have no way of knowing. So the only way to know is to monitor closely and see what unfolds…I’d say go for it if you have the time.

            re longitude: I noticed the same and have no idea. My first thought was I would like data from the geographic center of the Asian continent as all the scripps stations are on sea shores or islands excepting the SP but even it is not all that far inland and appears to be well within the reach of the circumpolar JS fresh off that big ocean. A data source as far from the ocean as possible would be of interest.

  31. With the amount of fossil-fuel CO2 only a small percentage of the total carbon-cycle, any change in the former would take some time to show up in the well-mixed atmosphere, and the change would have to last for a significant time.

  32. General comment: In many posts at WUWT it’s difficult to tell if the author is joking or is genuinely nuts. When we speak face to face we can tell from someone’s facial expression or the tone of their voice if they are joking. But in written text those clues are missing. So someone invented smiley faces to serve that purpose. / sarc also works.

    • We hominids evolved symbolic language to overcome the limitations of facial expression and grunt intonations. Some hold-outs of course have never really accepted this innovation.

  33. If we do enter another Great Depression, we may replicate the effect of the last one, the natural experiment in 1929-1931, when global human CO2 production went down by 30%, CO2 did not change its indolent rise, and temperature kept rising… until it dropped 10 years later.

    Then during WWII and postwar reconstruction, when we produced quite a bit of CO2, global CO2 levelled off, and temperature dropped slightly but significantly enough to produce alarms about the Oncoming Ice Age (see Time and Newsweek and ScienceNews in the early ’70s).

    CO2 is not in control of temperature at this time, at these levels. We are not in control of CO2.
    If there is any good news in this pandemic it may be putting AGW to rest so we can concentrate on other things. St. Greta may retire to her cell.

  34. From your link:

    “In the first week of March, commercial traffic was down 3.9% below 2019 levels. In the final week of March, commercial traffic declined 62.9% from the same period in 2019.”

    I live nine miles to the east of O’Hare Airport and planes on final approach pass directly over my building. At the evening rush I have counted as many as 15 planes visible in the pattern. Recently it is more like two or maybe three. Air traffic is down a lot more than 28%.

  35. Dr. Spencer wrote, “I personally doubt we will see a clear COVID-19 effect in the CO2 data in the coming months, but I would be glad to be proved wrong.”

    Dr. Spencer, why would you be glad to be proved wrong?

  36. Henry Pool April 12, 2020 at 8:28 am
    Phil.
    you seem to think that water vapor is not a gas. Therefore my observations / examples are not ‘valid’.

    No, water vapor is a gas which is why your descriptions of elastic scattering from water vapor are mistaken.

    I once secretly looked into the cuvette holder to see what happens when you turn the wavelength dial slowly to the wavelength where I was supposed to measure. What I saw happening is exactly as I described: the light comes back to you, to the direction of the source, but also scattering somewhat to the left and to the right and all around. You never observed this? It is real nature. 62.5% in the direction of the light source. Just like I told you. But then you always disagree with that. So why would you continue going into discussion with me?
    What you are describing is Mie scattering, which is elastic scattering from particles not from a gas.
    I have observed it many times, I even co-invented an instrument that uses this scattering to measure particle size. The reason I comment on your posts on this subject is not to change your mind but to point out your errors to others.

  37. Phil.
    Must say, I will have to check it, but I thought that the law Lambert-Beer applied both to gases, liquids, or dissolved molecules in liquids, etc.
    iow wherever we used spectroscopy.

    But anyway, that is off topic. The question, that evolved from the post, is what the effect is of 0.01% CO2 that was added to the atmosphere over the past 60 years or so.. I showed my calculations (at the beginning of the thread) and I calculated that it is next to nothing.

    The real mass is in the oceans and seas. The extra warming in the atmosphere came from the oceans.
    Indeed, there was extra warming that heated the oceans. It must have been from more UV that came through our atmosphere? Mostly.
    Anyway, that’s my story.

    • Henry Pool April 13, 2020 at 5:03 am
      Phil.
      Must say, I will have to check it, but I thought that the law Lambert-Beer applied both to gases, liquids, or dissolved molecules in liquids, etc.
      iow wherever we used spectroscopy.

      Beer-Lambert law applies to absorption not elastic scattering, limited to weak absorbers.
      As to the effect of the added 100ppm CO2 of the order of 2W/sq m

      • Phil. says
        As to the effect of the added 100ppm CO2 of the order of 2W/sq m

        Henry says:
        there we have it! These are Phil. ‘s original ‘calculations’
        Don’t they remind you of the 1.7 W/m2 nonsense coming from the IPCC?

        Click on my name to read my final report on all of that…

          • yes,
            phil.
            remember that the gaps you see are due mostly to clouds, water (l, e.g. rain) and water (s, snow, hail), etc. Nothing to do with CO2 (g)?
            You agreed with me that normal RH and CO2 is a gas. There is not much mass. If it gets hit by light in the extinction area it has to go back. Hence we can pick up the radiation specific to the extinction areas of CO2 via moon back on earth. Remember Turnbull et al about the earth shine?

            I would say that the implication of Lambert Beer is that if there is twice as much CO2, twice as much back radiation (15 um) will go to earth and twice as much back radiation in the sun’s spectrum, especially 0-5 um, goes back to space.
            However, twice as much of [almost] nothing is still nothing?
            See my calculation at the beginning of this thread. (I think it is now the second comment)

          • Henry Pool April 14, 2020 at 6:58 am
            yes,
            phil.
            remember that the gaps you see are due mostly to clouds, water (l, e.g. rain) and water (s, snow, hail), etc. Nothing to do with CO2 (g)?

            No Henry, there are no clouds in that spectrum, the large absorption structure at 15 microns is absorption by CO2.

            You agreed with me that normal RH and CO2 is a gas. There is not much mass. If it gets hit by light in the extinction area it has to go back.

            No it gets absorbed!

            Hence we can pick up the radiation specific to the extinction areas of CO2 via moon back on earth. Remember Turnbull et al about the earth shine?

            Yes I do, unlike you I knew what she was talking about

  38. Busy topic. Goes WAY off course down every rabbit hole.
    However, the original plot of CO2 vs the plot of “The Earth in Time” which was posted earlier should give any reasonable person cause to rethink the concept of Co2 warming. It ain’t Co2, so it doesn’t matter WHAT a Co2 molecule does. What it does NOT do is control the climate. The chart below is taken from 50 million readings over 120 years. I have been alive through over half of this period, and have lived through cold and hot spells. The most telling part of this chart is the last part – the period of the last 22 years when everyone frets about Co2 which, if both of these charts are correct, would imply that Co2 brings on COOLING!!!
    https://theearthintime.com/

    • So the conclusion wrt this post is the oceans are warming due to increased UV from our local star. As the oceans warm they liberate more water vapor and CO2. Thus, the CV19 induced reduction in human emission of CO2 will have no measurable influence on the steady rise of CO2.

      How will the alarmists explain that?

  39. Just for clarity for those interested
    (not for Phil.)

    https://onedrive.live.com/view.aspx?resid=BD7354299B4A47DD!5003&ithint=file%2cxlsx&authkey=!ANga7pTWp8Jzf_w

    If you shift to the right hand side of my excel file you will see the IR spectrum of CO2 on the right hand side and on the left is the scale for: transmittance. Transmittance is showing the radiation that goes through the molecule.
    Most gases in the atmosphere have 100% transmittance. Only about 0.8% of the whole atmosphere (which includes clouds and physical liquid – and solid water) have spectra where the molecule shows absorption. That is the radiation that will not pass through the molecule!!! It is not allowed to go through. Therefore that radiation has to go back.
    62.5% of a certain amount [depending on the strength of the extinction] in the direction where it came from. The rest is scattered around.
    Hence, we can pick it up that radiation specific to the IR spectrum of the relevant GH gas via the moon, i.e. Turnbull et al.

    • @Samuel
      Sorry. Sam was right. Oxygen has a small absorption peak as well somewhere in its spectrum. However, I am not sure if we can count oxygen as a GH gas.

  40. Henry Pool April 15, 2020 at 5:00 am
    Just for clarity for those interested
    (not for Phil.)
    Transmittance is showing the radiation that goes through the molecule.
    Most gases in the atmosphere have 100% transmittance. Only about 0.8% of the whole atmosphere (which includes clouds and physical liquid – and solid water) have spectra where the molecule shows absorption. That is the radiation that will not pass through the molecule!!! It is not allowed to go through. Therefore that radiation has to go back.

    For the nth time NO! That is not what happens and is the source of your total misunderstanding of spectroscopy and quantum mechanics. The radiation is absorbed by the molecule and the energy transferred to one of the excitation modes of the molecule (electronic, vibrational or rotational), a short browse through any elementary textbook of Physical Chemistry or Molecular Spectroscopy will show you that.

    Sorry. Sam was right. Oxygen has a small absorption peak as well somewhere in its spectrum. However, I am not sure if we can count oxygen as a GH gas.

    Yes there is a very weak peak between 6 and 7 microns, absorption is ~10^-6 compared with the 15 micron band of CO2 which has a peak absorption at ~0.3 over a 10 cm pathlength.
    So no O2 doesn’t class as a GH gas.

  41. DonK said
    …..there can be significant energy interchange between CO2 molecules and molecules of the non-radiative gases. i.e. can a collision between a CO2 molecule and, for example, a Nitrogen molecule cause the CO2 molecule to enter an excited state from which it can subsequently fire off a photon and return to its initial state. And vice versa. Can a CO2 molecule absorb a photon, enter an excited state, then transfer the energy to a Nitrogen molecule during a collision?

    Henry says

    Don, unfortunately there are many people like Phil. who honestly believe that CO2 can pass on this energy to other molecules. Now I worked with all kinds of spectroscopy. I even measured CO2 in nitrogen.
    Note that I am notoriously absentminded, meaning that I usually left machines running for days on end. If what Phil. is saying is true, wouldn’t you think the cuvette and everything in it would have exploded or heated up tremendously if I continually bombarded it with radiation of the absorption area and if this energy were to be passed on as energy from certain molecules to other molecules?

    It does not happen like that. The molecule absorbs until it is filled, the photons discover that they cannot go through and so they have to go back.
    You can see this happening in the Turnbull report, especially look at Fig 6 (bottom) e.g. look at the green line of the CO2 that was projected. See how it comes back to us via the moon in Fig. 7. So that radiation went from the sun, to earth and hit on the CO2. The back radiation of the CO2 hit on the moon and bounced back to earth where we happened to have an IR measuring instrument sensitive enough in the near IR area so that we could measure it.
    http://astro.berkeley.edu/~kalas/disksite/library/turnbull06a.pdf
    You get it?

    • Just when I thought we had the AGW genie back in the bottle…so the increased UV is due to humans destroying O3 rather than the sun simply emitting more UV as some part of a solar cycle? I thought the government fixed the Ozone layer?

      Meanwhile, I think I follow your general line of reasoning wrt to CO2. Steele Fig 44 and recent weather in Denver, CO and parts west seem to indicate that CO2 is not in control of the weather. Your point about earthshine is if the CO2 was so potent the IR is supposedly absorbed would not/could not travel back to the moon. It would have stayed right here in our atmosphere…but it didn’t.

    • Henry Pool April 15, 2020 at 7:32 am
      DonK said
      …..Can a CO2 molecule absorb a photon, enter an excited state, then transfer the energy to a Nitrogen molecule during a collision?

      Henry says

      Don, unfortunately there are many people like Phil. who honestly believe that CO2 can pass on this energy to other molecules.

      Yes they’re called Physical Chemists, it’s not a question of belief it’s knowledge, they measure it! As mentioned earlier the Stern-Volmer equation describes such a process, I don’t suppose you looked it up Henry?

      Now I worked with all kinds of spectroscopy. I even measured CO2 in nitrogen.
      Note that I am notoriously absentminded, meaning that I usually left machines running for days on end. If what Phil. is saying is true, wouldn’t you think the cuvette and everything in it would have exploded or heated up tremendously if I continually bombarded it with radiation of the absorption area and if this energy were to be passed on as energy from certain molecules to other molecules?

      And those molecules in turn collided with the glass walls of the cuvette and transferred their heat to the outside world.

      It does not happen like that. The molecule absorbs until it is filled, the photons discover that they cannot go through and so they have to go back.

      It certainly doesn’t work like that!

      You can see this happening in the Turnbull report, especially look at Fig 6 (bottom) e.g. look at the green line of the CO2 that was projected. See how it comes back to us via the moon in Fig. 7. So that radiation went from the sun, to earth and hit on the CO2. The back radiation of the CO2 hit on the moon and bounced back to earth where we happened to have an IR measuring instrument sensitive enough in the near IR area so that we could measure it.

      That’s not what the paper says, Turnbull says that light reflected from medium altitude water clouds forms the Earthshine that reflects off the moon, some of the wavelengths are absorbed by the various components of the altitude above those clouds thereby providing a structure to the spectrum indicating the composition of the atmosphere. If you look at Fig. 7 you’ll see that the reflectivity is lower in the absorption bands, whereas your theory says it should be higher. What they’re looking at is the absorption spectrum from space not backscatter from atmospheric molecules.

      You get it?

      Yes I do, unfortunately you don’t.

      • When a photon enters a gas, three things can happen upon a collision…it can be absorbed, it can be reflected, and it can be deflected. This is very simple gas theory. You can look it up. Now, when a photon is absorbed, it is gone. The absorber enters a higher energy state. The excited molecule can then emit a new photon, or it can lose energy through a collision with a lower energy molecule. It is my understanding that it only takes nanoseconds for an excited molecule to radiate a photon. Having worked with lasers for over a decade, these principles were used to make them work properly. All a laser is, is a method of getting gases to emit photons. The lasers at Lawrence Livermore in the fast breeder project were 6 inches in diameter (the beam) and salt was used as the lenses. They were so powerful that they emitted X-rays. My instrument was used to measure the power of those lasers…
        We had Co2 lasers, and nitrogen lasers…and of course He Ne red lasers. Co2 laser beams are invisible, but mighty. Nitrogen beams are green and can cut your finger off if you’re not careful. The light, from lightening, is photons emitted by all the gases in the ionization process…ALL of them.

        • John Shotsky April 16, 2020 at 6:21 am
          When a photon enters a gas, three things can happen upon a collision…it can be absorbed, it can be reflected, and it can be deflected. This is very simple gas theory. You can look it up. Now, when a photon is absorbed, it is gone. The absorber enters a higher energy state. The excited molecule can then emit a new photon, or it can lose energy through a collision with a lower energy molecule. It is my understanding that it only takes nanoseconds for an excited molecule to radiate a photon.

          The mean time for radiation will depend on the nature of the excited state, in the case of vibrationally excited CO2 it’s of the order of millisec so with ~10 collisions/nsec there are millions of collisions during the lifetime of the excited state.

          Having worked with lasers for over a decade, these principles were used to make them work properly. All a laser is, is a method of getting gases to emit photons. The lasers at Lawrence Livermore in the fast breeder project were 6 inches in diameter (the beam) and salt was used as the lenses. They were so powerful that they emitted X-rays. My instrument was used to measure the power of those lasers…
          We had Co2 lasers, and nitrogen lasers…and of course He Ne red lasers. Co2 laser beams are invisible, but mighty. Nitrogen beams are green and can cut your finger off if you’re not careful.

          Lasers are a bit different from normal emissions since they involve stimulated emission which requires that the excited state be in an inverted population state (more excited states than ground state). In fact the CO2 laser involves exciting N2 to an excited state via an electronic discharge, this state has a forbidden transition back to the groundstate so it has a long lifetime. Coincidentally it has almost exactly the same energy as an excited state of CO2 which it can collisionally excite. The excited state of CO2 then becomes inverted leading to a laser pulse. A perfect example of collisional quenching.

          • So what excites atm CO2?

            Sunshine?

            If so, more CO2 = more excitement?

            Or more sunshine = CO2 more excited?

            Mass balance aside, what be the energy balance?

            Same in, less out?

            Atm dT data don’t seem to be supporting the later at the moment.

          • Meiggs
            Don’t waste your time trying to argue with Phil.
            In the end it is always like that, wanting to keep looking at his ‘books’ instead of simply looking at what happens in nature…
            (and I quote)
            ‘Yes they’re called Physical Chemists’

            Now look where these wonderful people like Phil. have brought us. I suggest you watch until the end to get the whole message of the video.

            https://youtu.be/pql1RuSfg1s

            $154 billion spent on a complete non-issue. Terrible. Awful. What a waste.
            You will wait in vain for Phil. to show any regrets for his nonsense stories about the CO2.

          • meiggs April 16, 2020 at 7:37 pm
            So what excites atm CO2?

            Sunshine?

            Mostly IR. The main CO2 absorption peak is near the energy peak of the Earth’s emission spectrum. That excites the vibrational (and rotational fine structure) modes of the CO2 molecules.
            Solar energy heats the surface and the surface temperature will increase until the loss of energy from the top of the atmosphere equals the energy entering. Increasing CO2 reduces the IR leaving the ToA until the surface temperature increases to compensate.

          • When the surface begins to warm at all, it radiates at a higher RATE. The rate is proportional to the 4th power of the change in temperature. It is a FANTASTIC thermostat. The entire surface of the earth and all of its oceans are continuously radiating toward space. SOME of those untold photons are intercepted by a CO2 molecule. But to think that the miniscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can actually cause the surface to warm fails to recognize the billions of photons sent upward for every one sent down by CO2. Besides, only HALF of the CO2 molecules will be earth directed. Regardless, gas theory says the temperature of any gas is proportional to its temperature, pressure and volume. There is no special rule for CO2 or any other gas. CO2 cannot ‘warm’ the inactive molecules around them. (You can’t warm 2400 inert gas molecules with one CO2 molecule…)

          • Meiggs
            Don’t waste your time trying to argue with Phil.
            In the end it is always like that, wanting to keep looking at his ‘books’ instead of simply looking at what happens in nature…
            (and I quote)
            ‘Yes they’re called Physical Chemists’

            Yes, those of us who spend their lives researching the subject, and record our experience in ‘books’ so that those of those who follow can benefit from our experience. When I looked at what was happening ‘in nature’ using the facilities of my laser diagnostics laboratory I found that it agreed with what Stern and Volmer had observed a hundred years ago. However Henry prefers to make up his own theory which doesn’t agree with what’s observed ‘in nature’, that’s what happens when you despise ‘books’.

          • John Shotsky April 17, 2020 at 8:41 am
            When the surface begins to warm at all, it radiates at a higher RATE. The rate is proportional to the 4th power of the change in temperature. It is a FANTASTIC thermostat. The entire surface of the earth and all of its oceans are continuously radiating toward space. SOME of those untold photons are intercepted by a CO2 molecule. But to think that the miniscule amount of CO2 in the atmosphere can actually cause the surface to warm fails to recognize the billions of photons sent upward for every one sent down by CO2.

            Where do you get ‘billions’ from? Look at the Earth’s emission spectrum, see that large dip that’s the absorption by CO2, more like 10% not billionths.

            http://lasp.colorado.edu/~bagenal/3720/CLASS5/EarthBB.jpg

            Besides, only HALF of the CO2 molecules will be earth directed. Regardless, gas theory says the temperature of any gas is proportional to its temperature, pressure and volume. There is no special rule for CO2 or any other gas. CO2 cannot ‘warm’ the inactive molecules around them. (You can’t warm 2400 inert gas molecules with one CO2 molecule…)

            Really? Those CO2 molecules are intercepting ~13 W/m2/sr so ~80 W/m2, you don’t think that would warm the surrounding molecules?

          • 1.15E+19 lbs atm
            5.10E+14 m^2, surface area of planet earth
            80 W/m2, CO2 affect
            4.08E+16 W, retained by CO2
            1.39E+17 btu/hr, retained by CO2
            8760 hrs/yr
            1.22E+21 btu retained in one year
            442 deg F, atm dT in one yr

          • At 400 ppm of CO2, there are 2500 molecules of inert gases to each CO2 molecule. Those inert molecules let surface radiation pass through to space. Only the Co2 molecule (plus water vapor, etc) is subject to absorbing a photon.
            If you want to do some math, calculate the number of molecules on the entire earth’s surface, including all surface water. And remember, those molecules are continuously radiating – based on their temperature alone. Raise that temperature *any* and the rate of radiation will increase.
            Next, figure out how many Co2 molecules there are in the entire atmosphere. Figure out how many photons are continuously radiated from earth, and how many are radiated back to earth (at most, half). And also remember that Co2 can’t be a different temperature than the rest of it’s 2500 molecules, due to the ideal gas laws. Gases at the same pressure and volume are at the same temperature. That is a law, not a hypothesis.

          • Roger that.

            And yes, I get it. The math may or may not be over my head but the principal remains the same:

            T^4 looking at near absolute zero, indicates which way the heat go.

            Atm dT data, even if credible on the + confirms that dCO2 impact on enthalpy of the atm approaches zero.

            So does recent weather out in CO.

            My money’s on Pool.

          • meiggs April 17, 2020 at 4:20 pm
            1.15E+19 lbs atm
            5.10E+14 m^2, surface area of planet earth
            80 W/m2, CO2 affect
            4.08E+16 W, retained by CO2
            1.39E+17 btu/hr, retained by CO2
            8760 hrs/yr
            1.22E+21 btu retained in one year
            442 deg F, atm dT in one yr

            Mass of atmosphere 10^18 kg
            Heat capacity 1 kJ/kg.K
            Surface area 5×10^14 m^2
            Heat retained by CO2 80W/m^2

            So potential temperature rise in the atmosphere due to IR absorption by CO2 4×10-5 K/s
            A day is a bit less than 10^5 sec so ~4 K/day

            However that heat does not remain in the atmosphere as there is heat transfer back to the surface which has a high heat capacity so everything stays in balance. That represents the current radiational heat transfer from the surface to the atmosphere at current conditions. Increase the concentration of CO2 and the amount of heat retained will increase and the temperature of the surface will increase to return the system to balance.

          • Phil, where I live ave dT according to gov records is 0.8 K over 150 yrs.

            Rainfall is way up though, from 36″ per annum around 49″ now, stronger trend that T. That’s a significant amount of latent heat.

            Headed to the hills to watch the trees and sleep under the skies. I’ll think about 4 K/day but have not experienced that here. Even in places where we cut down all the trees. I do understand the concept of equilibrium and rise to it.

            Have a good weekend!

  42. meiggs, you said
    ‘are warming due to increased UV from our local star’

    Yes, I had not answered you because I realized that most people here (like Phil.) donot really understand what is happening with GH gases in the atmosphere. The ozone, HxOx and NxOx is formed from the main components in the atmosphere TOA by the most extreme radiation that we get from the sun. If this formation were not happening we would all die. It is earth’s first defense system. Hence, do not go to Mars before you made an atmosphere…

    Obviously, the lower the magnetic field strengths, the more of the extreme particles are able to escape from the sun and hence the more of these substances will be formed TOA>
    Now, as it happens, particularly O3 and HxOx, have absorption in the UV area. We have all learned now what this means? See previous comments. It means that the more of these substances are formed TOA, the less UV goes into the oceans ( as more of it is deflected off from earth), and hence the cooler it gets.

    Isn’t there a strange paradox here? My way of thinking (i.e. absorption means deflection) reveals that ozone destroying chemicals could be a cause for AGW….The CO2 is just a red herring.
    Still, yes, it is the sun, that we all depend on.

  43. Whilst I am at it, perhaps I should tell you.
    we all know that when UV hits your skin, the water underneath gets to boiling point and you burn.
    \
    So when the UV hits on the top layers of the oceans, the water gets to boiling point and forms water vapor and also releases CO2 from the ocean.
    Did you ever read in a book that it is the UV that causes clouds and CO2 in the atmosphere and that all of this subsequently made YOU?
    Did you hear this for the first time>?
    Click on my name to get an understanding about the false accusations relating to CO2.

    • Henry Pool April 15, 2020 at 9:03 am
      Whilst I am at it, perhaps I should tell you.
      we all know that when UV hits your skin, the water underneath gets to boiling point and you burn.

      Actually that’s something we all know doesn’t happen, thank God.

      So when the UV hits on the top layers of the oceans, the water gets to boiling point and forms water vapor and also releases CO2 from the ocean.

      It does not get to boiling point, as the surface temperature increases the equilibrium vapor pressure increases and as some water evaporates the surface temperature will cool thus a slightly warmer surface temperature is reached where the radiative energy entering the surface is balanced by the increased loss of latent heat.

      • Phil. says
        It does not get to boiling point,

        Henry says
        So how, exactly, do you get vapor from a liquid?
        Come on., Phil. You disappoint me. You are a physical chemist. Are you not even aware that to transit from the liquid to the gas phase, the liquid has to reach boiling point [of the liquid] at 1 atm??

        So, for those interested here, do not be misled by Phil. He has not read his books properly.
        The top layer of molecules of the water of the seas an oceans get transformed by the UV being allowed through the atmosphere. Hence it is the amount UV that determines the temperature on earth. Mostly.

        • Henry Pool April 19, 2020 at 9:37 am
          Phil. says
          It does not get to boiling point,

          Henry says
          So how, exactly, do you get vapor from a liquid?
          Come on., Phil. You disappoint me. You are a physical chemist. Are you not even aware that to transit from the liquid to the gas phase, the liquid has to reach boiling point [of the liquid] at 1 atm??

          No it does not, for all the water to convert from the liquid phase to the gas phase requires the temperature to exceed the boiling point. To have liquid and vapor phase water coexist requires the temperature be between the triple point and the critical point. The higher the temperature the higher the vapor pressure in equilibrium with the liquid water.

          https://d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.net/images/research_education/equilibria/h2o_phase_diagram_-_color.v2.jpg

          If your surface water is at 10ºC the vapor pressure of water is 1.23 kPa, increase it to 15ºC and the vapor pressure increases to 1.7 kPa. That’s what happens not boiling!
          The boiling point of water is reached when the vapor pressure equals the atmospheric pressure, a vapor pressure of 1 atm requires a temperature of 100ºC, that’s boiling.

          The top layer of molecules of the water of the seas an oceans get transformed by the UV being allowed through the atmosphere. Hence it is the amount UV that determines the temperature on earth. Mostly.

          The top layers of the seawater gets heated by all radiation incident on it, UV, Vis and IR, visible penetrates the deepest.

        • Henry: As an armchair quantum mechanic I can see UV chipping liquid H2O molecules off of the surface of ocean… through the classically accepted notion of phase change is something no one really seems to understand but it is observable in nature and thus real for purposes of this discussion.

          So it’s also real that it takes a certain amount of energy to make water change phase at 14.7 psia. That’s a fact. It’s called “latent heat of vaporization” or some such.

          I understand that you are using the expression “boiling point” to mean “phase change.” In this case from liquid to solid. Happens every day. And condensation happens every night.

          As Phil points out (I think) evaporation cools the ocean. And as I will point out, condensation of same causes cooling of the atm as the quantum energy captured at the SST is liberated back into the deep space heat sink.

      • Phil: I agree, the entropic state of the surface of the ocean does not rise to “boiling” when struck by various photons (at least on a normal day, GRBs and the like excluded). However, if I understand quantum mechanics and statistics (and I don’t) then it is still quantumly and statistically possible for an H2O molecule at the surface of the ocean to undergo phase change while it’s immediate neighbors may not.

        That said, how can one tell that a single H20 molecule is in liquid or vapor phase? I have no clue. But, I do know that water evaporates especially when you put some bright sunshine on it. So I will think of one molecule of many jumping in energy state several X times it’s neighbors when struck by a UV photon and that several X jump causing a phase change of a few (but not many) of the H2O’s present.

        That said, and re: “as the surface temperature increases the equilibrium vapor pressure increases and as some water evaporates the surface temperature will cool thus a slightly warmer surface temperature is reached”

        Not sure what this means, logically I think it reads: warming causes evaporation, evaporation causes cooling and thus cooling causes warming? I’m lost on that one though my guess is you are saying that phase change (mechanism irrelevant) off sets most, but not all of the effects of radiation. Though I think that is a technically defensible stance it still support’s Pools’s notion that temperature of the ocean surface is a function of the energy output of our local star, sometimes it delivers more energy and some times less. This is sensed by biological forms of our nature as “warmer or cooler.” It also affects the measurable temperature of the SST.

        Meanwhile, the 1.36x increase in latent HX phenomena over the past 150 yrs in my hood leads me to believe that the oceans are cooling. That’s a sense, not a fact. But 119 yr record cold broken in Denver, CO this month in spite of ~115 ppm more CO2 over those same 119 yrs. They’ve set at least 4 record lows in Denver this month, CO2 or no that beings to hint that we are in a NA cooling trend despite CO2.

        • meiggs April 19, 2020 at 5:38 pm
          Phil: I agree, the entropic state of the surface of the ocean does not rise to “boiling” when struck by various photons (at least on a normal day, GRBs and the like excluded). However, if I understand quantum mechanics and statistics (and I don’t) then it is still quantumly and statistically possible for an H2O molecule at the surface of the ocean to undergo phase change while it’s immediate neighbors may not.

          Yes that’s what happens all the time, if you have a water surface in equilibrium with the atmosphere above it you have a steady flow of water molecules leaving the surface balanced by water molecules in the gas phase reentering the surface.

          That said, how can one tell that a single H20 molecule is in liquid or vapor phase? I have no clue. But, I do know that water evaporates especially when you put some bright sunshine on it. So I will think of one molecule of many jumping in energy state several X times it’s neighbors when struck by a UV photon and that several X jump causing a phase change of a few (but not many) of the H2O’s present.

          That said, and re: “as the surface temperature increases the equilibrium vapor pressure increases and as some water evaporates the surface temperature will cool thus a slightly warmer surface temperature is reached”

          Not sure what this means, logically I think it reads: warming causes evaporation, evaporation causes cooling and thus cooling causes warming? I’m lost on that one though my guess is you are saying that phase change (mechanism irrelevant) off sets most, but not all of the effects of radiation. Though I think that is a technically defensible stance it still support’s Pools’s notion that temperature of the ocean surface is a function of the energy output of our local star, sometimes it delivers more energy and some times less. This is sensed by biological forms of our nature as “warmer or cooler.” It also affects the measurable temperature of the SST.

          Basically you’re right, it’s a negative feedback effect, as the temperature of the water surface increases more molecules leave the surface taking the latent heat of vaporisation with them, consequently the vapor pressure increases slightly reaching a new balance point. The water molecules get excited and if they acquire enough energy they can break the hydrogen bonds that hold them to the neighboring and escape the surface

  44. meiggs
    I do know that it is the amount of UV that gets into the oceans that largely determines the cloud formation and Tmean on earth.
    There is some evidence suggesting that the discovery of the ‘ozone hole’ may have been biased, as instead they found much more peroxides in the hole. {OH radicals may be more prominent above the so-called hole]
    As you will see from the spectra, the H2O2 and O3 look very much the same, so it does the same job TOA>

    Perhaps Phil. might agree with me that ozone destroying chemicals could possibly have been a cause for the extra energy that came into the oceans?
    Personally I am not yet sure about the amount of influence by man or sun on the incoming amount of UV at sea level since nobody has properly investigated it.

  45. Henry: Thanks for the education, a topic of keen interest during this period of reduced ACO2…it’s good that over all it is at a high but that will not stop the alarmists from claiming that the record breaking cold in NA was due to…..drum roll….reduced human generated CO2…

  46. Meiggs
    Don’t waste your time trying to argue with Phil.
    In the end it is always like that, wanting to keep looking at his ‘books’ instead of simply looking at what happens in nature…
    (and I quote)
    ‘Yes they’re called Physical Chemists’ ” Didn’t you check MY book”

    Now look where these wonderful people like Phil. have brought us. I suggest you watch until the end to get the whole message of the video.

    https://youtu.be/pql1RuSfg1s

    $154 billion spent on a complete non-issue. Terrible. Awful. What a waste.
    You will wait in vain for Phil. to show any regrets for his nonsense stories about the CO2.

  47. Meiggs

    Note my comment here:
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2020/04/08/march-2020-co2-levels-at-mauna-loa-show-no-obvious-effect-from-global-economic-downturn/#comment-2964859

    I included a link there to show you the volume of the water on earth.
    I had hoped that maybe you could use a calculation to see how much energy is needed to raise the temperature of all the oceans by about 0.6 degrees, as indeed has happened over the past 60 years. From that amount of energy needed and even comparing this with the amount of energy ‘calculated’ by Phil. & his ilk of 1.7 or 2 W/m2 for the 100 ppm or so of CO2 that was added to the atmosphere, it should be clear that the warming or cooling of earth is caused by the varying amount of energy (e.g. UV) going into the oceans. Indeed, in my final report I show you that it is rather the other way around: the heat in the oceans determines the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere. By far. That is Henry’s Law. Click on my name to read that report.

    Note that the amount of energy calculated by Phil.’s and those other physical chemists came from the AR reports 2004 and 2007 from the IPCC where it was assumed that the warming in the atmosphere is caused by CO2, mostly, as proposed by Arrhenius and Tyndall. They looked at the observed warming in the atmosphere and then apportioned a weighted average linked to the added CO2.

    Crazy.

    • Phil, more bad math below but even if off by orders of magnitude the principal remains the same. How does CO2 put more energy in the ocean than it does the atm?

      If mechanical (mostly convective HX) mixing is the explanation, I don’t buy it given the surface area to volume ratio we are discussing. That could be calc’d too.

      If it’s UV, I get that, a very very small increase (~0.006x) increase in radiant UV energy could explain the dT and seems like could be explained by natural variation. Plus geothermal can’t be counted out. Geothermal + UV is credible and technically defensible in terms of orders of magnitude. I’ll put that up against 1 out of 2500 molecules in the atm.

      I did get Phil’s number, looks like they use the thermocline at 1000 meters and go from there.

      Using the same 1000 m of ocean depth it would be interesting to see how much of the volatile “excess” CO2 is liberated by the 0.6C(?) dT…a mass balance between what came out of the ocean vs rise in atm CO2 mass should be in reasonable agreement. May over a few beers after my weekend back pack.

      https://www.livescience.com/6470-ocean-depth-volume-revealed.html

      7.975E+20 lbs wtr in the ocean, appx, in upper 1 km

      1.1 F dT (assumes 0.6 C dT)
      0.96 btu/lbF spec ht sea wtr
      8.422E+20 btu absorbed by upper 1 km
      60 yrs
      525600 hrs in 60 yrs
      1.602E+15 btu/hr
      4.695E+14 W, power driving ocean dT assuming 0.6C dT of upper 1 km
      469 TW,
      2.77E+15 sq ft ocean surface
      2.54362E+14 sq m ocean surface
      1.8 W/m^2
      1067 ocean heat cap/atm heat cap
      0.00173 W/m^2 atm cap for same dT

      83640 TW, solar power reaching surface of planet
      164 W/m^2, solar power flux surface of planet
      1.13E-02 ocean power flux/solar power flux
      5.61E-03 power absorbed by ocean/solar power at surface of planet

      1.83E+10 W, power driving atm dT based on NC dT

      3.89E-05 atm warming power/ocean warming power
      25691 CO2 powers the ocean 26000X more than the atm

  48. John Shotsky April 17, 2020 at 4:35 pm
    At 400 ppm of CO2, there are 2500 molecules of inert gases to each CO2 molecule. Those inert molecules let surface radiation pass through to space. Only the Co2 molecule (plus water vapor, etc) is subject to absorbing a photon.

    Those inert molecules let the radiation pass through until they hit the next CO2 molecule, there are about 10^30 molecules above each m^2, of which ~4×10^26 are CO2.

    If you want to do some math, calculate the number of molecules on the entire earth’s surface, including all surface water. And remember, those molecules are continuously radiating – based on their temperature alone. Raise that temperature *any* and the rate of radiation will increase.

    Next, figure out how many Co2 molecules there are in the entire atmosphere.
    See above.

    Figure out how many photons are continuously radiated from earth, and how many are radiated back to earth (at most, half).
    About 4×10^22 photons/m^2/sec from earth’s surface.

    And also remember that Co2 can’t be a different temperature than the rest of it’s 2500 molecules, due to the ideal gas laws. Gases at the same pressure and volume are at the same temperature. That is a law, not a hypothesis.

    Of course it can, the Gas Law is an average applied over the volume, all the molecules are bouncing around off each other at different velocities, exchanging energy via collisions. The distribution of energies is described by the Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution, due to the kinetic theory of gases. Any CO2 molecules in air that absorb a photon become vibrationally excited, if they collide with another molecule they exchange kinetic energy which can result in loss of vibrational energy and a corresponding increase in kinetic energy of the colliding molecule. That’s what the gas laws say, the more energetic molecules will give up energy to the less energetic.

    • Finally, someone says something I emphatically agree with. “That’s what the gas laws say, the more energetic molecules will give up energy to the less energetic.” Let’s say a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon and increases its energy by a photon…will it ‘warm’ 2500 nearby molecules? Of course not – it will lose that excess energy in one collision. But, that CO2 molecule is going to continue to lose energy because it is a radiative molecule and will radiate continuously. So, it will COOL, if you will, (lose energy) by radiating and there are 2500 inert molecules adjacent to help it gain that energy back. That means that CO2 helps COOL the atmosphere, not the other way around. if there was no CO2, or other greenhouse gases, the atmosphere would not be able to radiate any energy at all – and the daily heat gain from the sun would have to be handled by the surface alone. In order for that to happen, the surface would to be significantly warmer than it is now – to support the higher radiation required. It is, after all, a thermostat that is controlled by temperature. If you heat the earth, it is going to radiate at the 4th power of the additional heat energy. Most people can’t even fathom what that means. But it does mean that CO2 helps cool the atmosphere not the other way around. Think about it. Earth with no gh gases would be significantly warmer, because the surface would be responsible for sending all excess energy to space.

      • John Shotsky April 18, 2020 at 8:37 pm
        Finally, someone says something I emphatically agree with. “That’s what the gas laws say, the more energetic molecules will give up energy to the less energetic.” Let’s say a CO2 molecule absorbs a photon and increases its energy by a photon…will it ‘warm’ 2500 nearby molecules? Of course not – it will lose that excess energy in one collision.

        It could, but it’s unlikely more likely to lose it to multiple collisions (that’s what the measurements show).
        The average molecule at 25ºC has a kinetic energy of ~6×10^-21 J whereas the vibrational excited state of CO2 gains about 5x that, so one absorbed photon will increase the energy of the surrounding 2500 molecules by ~0.1%. Even if by chance it gave up all its energy to a single N2 molecule that molecule would continue to share that energy with its neighbors at the rate of ~10 collisions/nanosec.

        But, that CO2 molecule is going to continue to lose energy because it is a radiative molecule and will radiate continuously.

        No it will not radiate continuously, once it has lost that photon it’s back at the ground state and has no excess energy to emit, until it absorbs another photon.

        So, it will COOL, if you will, (lose energy) by radiating and there are 2500 inert molecules adjacent to help it gain that energy back. That means that CO2 helps COOL the atmosphere, not the other way around. if there was no CO2, or other greenhouse gases, the atmosphere would not be able to radiate any energy at all – and the daily heat gain from the sun would have to be handled by the surface alone.

        Which means that the surface will cool since without any greenhouse gases all the heat radiated from the surface will go straight to space, thus causing the surface to cool per the fourth power law you referred to until equilibrium is reached

        In order for that to happen, the surface would to be significantly warmer than it is now – to support the higher radiation required.

        Cooler to support lower radiation.

        It is, after all, a thermostat that is controlled by temperature. If you heat the earth, it is going to radiate at the 4th power of the additional heat energy. Most people can’t even fathom what that means. But it does mean that CO2 helps cool the atmosphere not the other way around. Think about it. Earth with no gh gases would be significantly warmer, because the surface would be responsible for sending all excess energy to space.

        That ~80W/m^2 that is blocked by CO2 will now go directly to space so the surface will cool until it’s radiating 80W/m^2 less.

        • Phil: See my questions to Shotsky re IR re the general topic of discussion.

          Re: “The average molecule at 25ºC has a kinetic energy of ~6×10^-21 J whereas the vibrational excited state of CO2 gains about 5x that, so one absorbed photon will increase the energy of the surrounding 2500 molecules by ~0.1%.”

          OK, photos are traveling at the speed of light yet massless (acc to theory) and + 5x the energy of the ave molecule when they impact CO2. At that point (I think) you indicate half that energy finds it way to the big heat sink in the sky while the other half finds it’s way back to the surface of the earth, swimming as it were against the stream and I accept that argument as there occasionally seem to be examples of that in nature though they usually or perhaps always seem to be associated with biology. But the indigenous of the Western hemisphere believe the planet and all else are alive so it may well be that reality does not cooperate with physics and thermodynamics.

          However, if it does then 0.001* 84000 TW at surface of planet earth due to insolation = 84 TW bounced back (upstream of normal heat flux vector) to the surface < 469 TW needed to explain a 0.6C rise in Pools wood for trees plot in the rise of the ocean temperature.

          I've got sun burns more than once on a cold day. The IR did not burn my skin. Sun screen blocks UV, not IR or you'd feel cold when you put the stuff on. I've never got a sun burn sitting in front of a wood fire yet many of times not frozen to death due to a wood fire. A steel surface at 800F can cause dry wood to burn at about a meter away but 20F air does not burn my skin…yet, it I don't stay covered on a clear winter day my melanin challenged skin will burn due to the UV.

          • meiggs April 19, 2020 at 5:03 pm
            Phil: See my questions to Shotsky re IR re the general topic of discussion.

            Re: “The average molecule at 25ºC has a kinetic energy of ~6×10^-21 J whereas the vibrational excited state of CO2 gains about 5x that, so one absorbed photon will increase the energy of the surrounding 2500 molecules by ~0.1%.”

            OK, photos are traveling at the speed of light yet massless (acc to theory) and + 5x the energy of the ave molecule when they impact CO2. At that point (I think) you indicate half that energy finds it way to the big heat sink in the sky while the other half finds it’s way back to the surface of the earth, swimming as it were against the stream and I accept that argument as there occasionally seem to be examples of that in nature though they usually or perhaps always seem to be associated with biology.

            No that’s not what I’m saying, near the surface there are two things that can happen when the photon is absorbed: The vibrational energy can be lost as kinetic energy to neighboring molecules via collisions or a photon can be emitted.
            Collisional quenching is most likely near the surface where the pressure is highest.
            The other possibility is that a photon is emitted, this becomes more probable as the pressure decreases (fewer collisions), the average time for emission is much longer than the rotation/vibration time so the direction in which the photon is emitted is random. Consequently ~half of those emitted photons are towards the surface and ~half are away.
            So near the surface the balance favors heat transfer to the surrounding atmosphere and near the tropopause favors emission.

            But the indigenous of the Western hemisphere believe the planet and all else are alive so it may well be that reality does not cooperate with physics and thermodynamics.

            Not quite sure what this means.

            I’ve got sun burns more than once on a cold day. The IR did not burn my skin. Sun screen blocks UV, not IR or you’d feel cold when you put the stuff on. I’ve never got a sun burn sitting in front of a wood fire yet many of times not frozen to death due to a wood fire. A steel surface at 800F can cause dry wood to burn at about a meter away but 20F air does not burn my skin…yet, it I don’t stay covered on a clear winter day my melanin challenged skin will burn due to the UV.

            What heats your skin is IR, the trouble with UV is it can damage your skin but you can’t feel it!
            As you say you can get sunburned by UV on a cold day.
            What happens with UV is that it causes damage to the DNA in your skin. This induces repair mechanisms and also destroys the damaged cells (apoptosis) and sloughs off the dead skin.
            Also melanin is produced to prevent further damage to the skin (melanin very efficiently absorbs the UVB). The damage by sunburn causes an inflammation by producing chemicals that increase the sensitivity to heat and overproduces a protein that activates nerve fibres causing pain. So sunburn doesn’t burn your skin, it just makes it feel that way!

      • Shotsky: Thanks for making a very clear and (what appears to me to be a) very defensible point technically. I had not thought of the issue in such terms (simple is good). If the www is credible the surface of the moon can reach 260F, 136F on earth, while that of Mars 68F. Throwing T^4 into that mix and accepting the earth and moon at the same distance from Sol it appears the earth’s atm helps keep earth’s surface cool during the day time. Meanwhile it is impressive that Mars can make it to 68F but it has virtually no atm (though it’s mostly CO2 so perhaps that explains max surface T on Mars)…but we must not forget Mars is around 43 million miles further away and thus radiant flux at earth (and it’s moon) is twice that of Mars…yet the mass of CO2 in the Martian atm appears to be the same order of magnitude that of earth…how can earth with twice the radiant flux from Sol achieve only ~1.12x the max surface temp of Mars (absolute) when enshrouded in the same mass (more bad meiggs math?) of CO2? And, if I followed your earlier posts 1/2400 molecules on earth are CO2 while ~95/100 on Mars are CO2 would Phil argue that Mars should be on average hotter than Earth???

        But wait, not much water vapor in the Martian atm…

        Looking at wiki leeks re Martian atm:

        Thermosphere (≈100–230 km): The layer is mainly controlled by extreme UV heating. The temperature of the Martian thermosphere increases with altitude and varies by season. The daytime temperature of the upper thermosphere ranges from 175 K (at aphelion) to 240 K (at perihelion) and can reach up to 390 K, but it is still significantly lower than the temperature of Earth’s thermosphere. The higher concentration of CO2 in the Martian thermosphere may explain part of the discrepancy because of the cooling effects of CO2 in high altitude.

        CO2 cools “higher altitude” …very interesting! Sounds like what Pool is saying about Earthshine is credible, at least on Wiki…if Mars is cooled by CO2 in it’s upper atm it’s moons would reflect that, literally and figuratively.

        Meanwhile, if I happen to be running around with a FLIR camera on a big air cooled H2O condenser that’s rejecting 1000 MW in January I can find air pockets as condensing water is always warmer than the trapped supercritical fluid (air, in-leakage)…but the sky above appears black on FLIR and pegs the camera’s low of minus 40F even though ambient air temperature was around 20F.

        And why should the sky read minus 40F on FLIR when local air temperature where I was standing was more like 80F? If the CO2 was reflecting radiant heat back at me to the tune of 80 W/m^2 why would the sky read minus 40? Asked differently, the heat flux on said ACC was around 2.7 W/m^2 in terms of effective HX area, while if the CO2 in the sky above is worth 80 W/m^2 it seems like the sky should have been bright (hot) white rather than (cold) black on the FLIR camera scale?

        But the condenser was indicated at 88F in the condensing zone to 32F (yes, we had some ice in the darn thing). Air below and well above said ACC was 20F…why was the sky minus 40 in the mind of FLIR?

        • I can answer about the flir camera – I used to design infrared thermometers, and you had to employ filters to work only with the ‘atmospheric window’ –that which can pass through the atmosphere. We designed and built these thermometers for industry, such as electrical line maintenance, where they were used to determine the temperature of pole-mounted transmission transformers. They looked like rifles, with scopes. They cost over $1000 in the 70’s, but now you can get a hand-held one for under $30…I have one, of course.
          https://gisgeography.com/atmospheric-window/

          • Shotsky: re “As a result, we only see specific portions of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum. This phenomenon is known as the Earth’s “atmospheric window”.”

            I understand that. But is Phil saying some photons make it through the atm window, are absorbed by various molecules at the the surface (mostly H2O) and then re-emitted at a wave length that no longer has an open window? The surface acting as a wave length modulator and the atm as a check valve. I can see that causing +dT but do not know if that is what is going on and even if it is it’s impact on atm T which appears to be slight.

            On the other hand I follow the rotisserie analogy but the planet is not always warming over time any more than it is warming over 4 seasons, at least in the temperate zones. With the rotisserie the “seasons of the sun” rule just as the tilt of the earths axis rule the seasons. Or maybe it’s the seasons of the geothermal, whatever the variable energy source may be.

          • meiggs April 19, 2020 at 7:29 pm
            Shotsky: re “As a result, we only see specific portions of the electromagnetic (EM) spectrum. This phenomenon is known as the Earth’s “atmospheric window”.”

            I understand that. But is Phil saying some photons make it through the atm window, are absorbed by various molecules at the the surface (mostly H2O) and then re-emitted at a wave length that no longer has an open window?

            The ‘atmospheric window’ is in the outgoing light.

            What I say is that irradiation from the sun mostly passed through the atmosphere and about 30% is reflected away, the remainder heats up the earth’s surface (and subsurface in the oceans). That heated surface emits IR, and in the case of a transparent atmosphere will continue to heat up until the temperature of the surface reaches the point when outgoing equals incoming. If you have an atmosphere like ours some regions of the spectrum don’t allow those wavelengths to freely exit the atmosphere. In that case some of the IR which would have left the atmosphere now can’t, consequently the surface has to continue heating until the outgoing equals incoming.

        • meiggs’ April 19, 2020 at 4:31 pm
          Meanwhile it is impressive that Mars can make it to 68F but it has virtually no atm (though it’s mostly CO2 so perhaps that explains max surface T on Mars)…but we must not forget Mars is around 43 million miles further away and thus radiant flux at earth (and it’s moon) is twice that of Mars…yet the mass of CO2 in the Martian atm appears to be the same order of magnitude that of earth…how can earth with twice the radiant flux from Sol achieve only ~1.12x the max surface temp of Mars (absolute) when enshrouded in the same mass (more bad meiggs math?) of CO2? And, if I followed your earlier posts 1/2400 molecules on earth are CO2 while ~95/100 on Mars are CO2 would Phil argue that Mars should be on average hotter than Earth???

          Mars has a very elliptical orbit which makes comparing max values tricky since Earth’s orbit is closer to circular.
          However you have to remember the T^4 effect, without considering the atmosphere the temperature will be proportional to the fourth power of the radius, which gives a ratio of ~1.2. Earth without an atmosphere would be 255 K and Mars 209 K (average).
          Similar amounts of CO2 in each atmosphere won’t give the same absorbance because of something called pressure broadening so in the Earth’s atmosphere CO2 is more effective, also Earth has additional absorbers.
          Even if the CO2 on Mars had the same effect Mars would still be cooler than Earth because it wouldn’t be able to overcome the initial difference of ~50º.

        • meiggs’ April 19, 2020 at 4:31 pm

          And why should the sky read minus 40F on FLIR when local air temperature where I was standing was more like 80F? If the CO2 was reflecting radiant heat back at me to the tune of 80 W/m^2 why would the sky read minus 40?

          Because the range of wavelengths imaged have to exclude those emitted by CO2 otherwise you’d only be able to image over a few metres. As Shotsky says you have to observe in the ‘window’.

          Asked differently, the heat flux on said ACC was around 2.7 W/m^2 in terms of effective HX area, while if the CO2 in the sky above is worth 80 W/m^2 it seems like the sky should have been bright (hot) white rather than (cold) black on the FLIR camera scale?

          The CO2 heat flux is in the wavelengths above 14 microns your FLIR doesn’t see those wavelengths.

          • That is why they are called INFRARED thermometers. They don’t ‘see’ colors, which is why IR cameras are not in color.

          • Shotsky: understood that IR is not “color” but the monkey using the FLIR can only see in “color” and thus (as I am sure you know) the IR info is translated into a relative scale of colors to communicate Temperature info to the IR blind user (just like Nullschool does with colorless things like humidity). That said I have no idea which bands of IR the FLIR can or cannot sense. What I do know for a fact is the air exiting the ACC was around 88F while not too far above that it was 20F or less. Never the less the FLIR saw only “cold” when pointed at space.

            But if I go back the the ACC IR shots and scrutinize several I do see what appears to be the warm air “films” that formed on the big ducts feeding the heat transfer surfaces. Depending on camera angle the sky can be deep black though I can make out deep dark blue clouds in the black in some images. I’ll guess that was air warm enough to radiate at a wave length that could be sensed by the FLIR.

            I don’t have the spec sheet for the FLIR it was a loaner but could find little ice patches in a big warm condenser. Fairly sensitive but sounds like Phil is saying it can’t see the wave length(s) of interest.

            Meanwhile, my color camera when the images it captures are converted to “black & white IR” always seem to imply that something is going on with plants.

            Surely someone has an instrument that can measure the IR reflected back at us by CO2??

  49. meiggs says

    25691
    CO2 powers the ocean 26000X more than the atm

    Henry says
    exactly. It is impossible.
    Don’t expect Phil. and those who keep fueling AGW thinking, to ever apologize for the physical impossibility that they promote. Their salaries depend on it….

    • My salary depends on the opposite so my bias is certainly obvious. But as a man of reason all I need are the facts and the basic facts/metrics seem to be lacking in the alarmist and denier camps. I recognize that a planetary climate system is beyond human comprehension and human machines such as computers. So we have to go with thought experiments and measurements and then judge based on our calculation, experience and intuition.

      That said, how much “volitile” CO2 would be liberated by a 0.6C +dT in the upper 1 km of the ocean? Though in some time constants of the Carbon cycle at clearly demonstrate where the alleged increase in CO2 came from?

      Surely that’s already been done?

      • Hi meigg,

        “I recognize that a planetary climate system is beyond human comprehension and human machines such as computers. So we have to go with thought experiments and measurements…’

        If we ask a simple question, and then measure something that validates either the “no” or “yes,” we can get a solid fundamental. For instance, this question:

        “Is the earth experiencing abnormal heating or cooling with respect to the Holocene normal?

        … and then we measure [GHCN TMAX 500,000,000 times or USCHN 50,000,000 times] we can get an answer.

        Without comprehending how climate works!

        https://theearthintime.com

        Right?

        • Agree. The measurements seem to concur with reality. But the question becomes what is the driver?

          I’m fairly certain it is not humans since they have not been around long and have yet to amount to much.

          • The deep answer is: what is the driver of the Pleistocene Ice House? Yes, the glaciation cycles whip CO2 around like crazy. Yes, human-release might have some amplification effect. But climate scientists do not really comprehend the driver of the Ice House.

            The incredible fortune to have the fossil fuel deposit, which gives life and easy to billions, is taking the blame.

            It is a distraction. Keeps our eye off the prize. The prize is: how to bring the driver of our star down to earth and make energy for all too cheap to meter. We should be grateful the coal is there to keep us warm while we discover how. Even if it takes two more centuries.

      • Yes, the accepted value is around 16ppm CO2/ºC, so a rise of 0.6ºC would give a rise of ~10 ppm CO2.

        • Phil: I’m going to have to think about CO2 off gassing in the ocean due to +dT. It’s easy to think of as tiny bubbles effervescing but those bubbles would be small and perhaps intercepted by biological organisms. I have no way of knowing but would simply assume that all CO2 liberated would make it to the atm whereupon atm CO2 ppm would rise and then compare that to alleged rise over the past 100 or so yrs. I think you are saying that 0.6C rise in ocean above it’s thermocline results in only +10 ppm impact on atm CO2. Seems like a small number. I’ll have to find some time to look at it.

          • When you have the chance look it up under Henry’s Law, the temperature sensitivity should give you the answer.

          • Phil:

            https://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/features/OceanCarbon

            “After 30 years of measurements, the ocean carbon community is realizing that tracking human-induced changes in the ocean is not as easy as they thought it would be.”

            Hmmm.

            I am familiar with Henry’s law and I think have even been paid to apply it before. But discussions without boundaries are more or less meaningless no matter how simple or complex the topic may be. So, if the oceans are warming and if that is caused by ACO2 in the atm my question remains: how much CO2 is liberated by the warming of the upper 1 km of the ocean by the alleged 0.6C? Or the ocean is absorbing ACO2…even if it’s surface is thought by some to be saturated with ACO2?

            Saturation is a real barrier in nature, no way around it, either way.

            So, start with assuming the upper 1 km is already saturated with CO2 and calculate how much CO2 would come out of solution. Which is what I did, math or inputs or model correct or not that idea sets the maximum theoretical output of CO2 from the ocean.

            Now, I realize that my maximum output of CO2 model is too simple for the situation. Nevertheless it puts an upper bound on the question.

            But perhaps, as Arthur Viterito hints geothermal flux, mid-ocean seismicity, thermohaline circulation are somewhere in the mix?

            NASA, a gov org that I consider to be rather biased and hypocritical (ever seen how much pollution their rockets put out?) even admits the ocean does not behave according to AGW theory.

            I’ve had to test sea water, it has a surprisingly high pH. We both know what that means.

            Yes, some surface waters can be acidic (mostly biology aka tannins from tree leaves) but compared to the ocean they are a drop in the bucket. So the bucket remains basic.

          • meiggs April 21, 2020 at 6:13 pm
            I am familiar with Henry’s law and I think have even been paid to apply it before. But discussions without boundaries are more or less meaningless no matter how simple or complex the topic may be. So, if the oceans are warming and if that is caused by ACO2 in the atm my question remains: how much CO2 is liberated by the warming of the upper 1 km of the ocean by the alleged 0.6C? Or the ocean is absorbing ACO2…even if it’s surface is thought by some to be saturated with ACO2?

            Whether the surface gives up CO2 depends on Henry’s Law, it’s the surface conditions that count not what’s happening 1km down. Solubility increases as you go deeper in the ocean.

            NASA, a gov org that I consider to be rather biased and hypocritical (ever seen how much pollution their rockets put out?)

            Well their fuel is hydrogen so the emissions are water so I’m not sure what pollution you’re referring to?

          • Phil: Understood that CO2 solubility in H2O is not only a function of temperature but also of pressure. Nevertheless if the surface of the body of water is saturated with CO2, then it seems to me that the only mechanism for quantifying rate of off gassing or absorption of CO2 becomes primarily mixing. And that, in my experience can become very complex, very quickly.

            How saturated is the sea with CO2? Don’t know, but some more bad math:

            2.900E+21 lbs wtr in the ocean
            1.13E+19 lbs air in the atm
            2.77E+15 sq ft ocean surface
            1.05E+06 lbs ocean/ft^2 ocean/atm interface
            4.09E+03 lbs atm/ft^2 ocean/atm interface
            2.00E-03 lbs CO2/lb water nom max at ~STP saturation
            2.09E+03 CO2 flux/ft^2 to saturate the wtr column below
            7.04E+15 lbs CO2 in the atm
            2.54E+00 lbs CO2 above the water column
            implication: CO2 flux vector favors sea to sky

            re NASA rockets: It takes a “whole bunch” of CO2 to produce liquid H2 and liquid O2 to fuel their rockets and other tax funded junkets. And, the solid fuel is even nastier … the primary propellants are ammonium perchlorate (oxidizer) and atomized aluminum powder (fuel).

            The power plants used to produce the NASA liquid fuels are held very low Cl & Al emissions…why is it OK for those of the “ocean carbon community” to pollute the way they do?

    • Henry:
      0.006 g CO2/100g wtr per C
      3.621E+23 g H2O in upper 1 km of the ocean
      0.6 deg C dT over 60 yrs
      3.621E+21 hectograms water
      0.0036 g CO2/hg liberated
      1.303E+19 g CO2 liberated
      13034 gigatonnes CO2 set free from the sea in 60 yrs
      217 gigatonnes CO2 per year off gassed by ocean
      10 gigatonnes CO2 attributed to humans per year, max
      0.05 human/ocean CO2 (supports the 5% human CO2 stance)
      3200 gigatonnes CO2 in the atm at present
      821 GT in the past 60 yrs CO2 net gain by atm, measured
      14 GT/yr
      0.06 net atm gain of CO2
      0.003 human portion of net atm CO2 gain
      Oceans not warming and/or biology doing well on planet earth?

  50. I may post this separately, but this is what I believe about why earth is at the temperature it is.
    Like the greenhouse effect, it needs to have an understandable mechanism by laymen. It needs to be believable. So far, there is only one hypothesis offered, and it has been picked at for decades, but never been disproven, so it stands as a hypothesis. The IPCC has blamed CO2, and politicians and businesses have jumped on the bandwagon to ‘control. CO2. That is, in my mind, utterly useless.
    Here is why:
    The earth operates like a rotisserie. (Yes, that is a simple, understandable analogy.) At the poles, if you were standing on the axis, you would rotate one time in 24 hours but you would not move any distance. But if you were on the line closest to the sun (like the equator when the sun is directly over the equator), you would travel 24,000 miles in 24 hours. THAT is the rotisserie. The sun is always present, and it is always warming earth – either in the atmosphere, or the surface or oceans, when it is present. It is very powerful and can warm things very fast. Heating from the sun happens quickly.
    At night, things are different. At night, the earth cools SOLELY by radiation. That is a slower process. It looks like a sawtooth – heating is fast, cooling is slow.
    During the day, the air heats up that we all walk around in. That is because the surface that we walk around of is heated, and that heat rises. We measure it as, uh, temperature. It is not the temperature of Co2, it is the temperature of the AIR. There is a reason it is measured at 2 meters above the surface – it is the establised point at which temperature readings are taken.
    But as the earth turns, the sun shines somewhere else, heating it. Meanwhile, earth’s radiation is cooling where the sun previously was. There is a RATE at which it cools, and that rate decreases all night as the temperature cools. But, radiation at night is not as powerful as sun during the day.
    And that is the key. The rotisserie is always turning and by the time the sun returns, only a certain amount of the previous day’s sun has been radiated. Presto…it is warmer than the black body radiation mode. it is BECAUSE we are on that rotisserie that we can never get back to the black body state because the SUN returns before it can.
    Change the rotation rate of earth: change the climate. Longer days mean hotter days and colder nights – more heating in one day, and more cooling on one night. Increase the rate of rotation: It won’t heat as long, nor will it cool as long. But at no time, does the earth stop rotating under the sun, and it always brings its heat before earth can shed it.
    The most obvious proof of this idea is our own seasons, ,which control the amount of sun vs dark each day, each season. You can literally SEE this happening every year. Yet it is discarded even though right in front of our eyes, in favor of some insignificant gas.
    Ever used a rotisserie? It cooks things as long as it is on. Ours is always on. It will never get back to black body temperature with that rotisserie in operation.

  51. meiggs

    let us go back to some basic thinking about the 0.6K that was added (by the sun) to the oceans over the past 60 years.

    I want to establish if you agree with me on this:

    Assume we have a 1000m column of water exactly 1 m2
    That is 10^6 kg/m2
    To heat one gram by 1 degree K you need 4.18 J
    so for 0.6K we need 2.51 10^9 J/m2 (for the whole column)
    This energy arrived over 60 years. That is 1.89 x 10^9 seconds. Assuming linearity, that gives us 1.32 W/m2.
    Note that the surface of earth is 70% water.
    So the answer to our problem about the amount of heat which we know is specifically not coming from ‘GH gases”: about 1 W/m2 of warming. This is natural warming, I would say. Unless, like I said before, we destroyed some of our ozone layer, which could have been the cause of some more UV (heat) coming through our atmosphere, landing in the ocean and subsequently causing more evaporation and subsequent condensation.
    Agree?

    • Henry: the ocean is a HUGE thermal capacitor being constantly irradiated from above while being constantly or intermittently heated from below. Seeing 0.6C dT now may or may not be due to current/recent atm/solar or geologic factors. I have not followed the ozone. The UV makes sense but our local star is a variable energy source as well. Could simply be putting out the same power but at different wavelengths, I don’t know.

      This I believe, precip in my neighborhood as trended significantly upward in the past 150 yrs. The question becomes does this mean that the oceans are warming or cooling? Or just a slip in the prevailing atm currents and/or oceanic? I know not.

      Evaporation along with effervescence of dissolved gases is a cooling process for the liquid reservoir left behind. My gut tells me it means the oceans are cooling which forebodes a larger cooling trend for the planet. But don’t know that I will live long enough to know as these things take time. Would be hilarious though if there were a sharp atm dT downward in my lifetime.

Comments are closed.